27. The 2013 Anti-Progress Report

In which we celebrate the first year of Radish — and perhaps of something greater.

Table of Contents

  1. Year in Review
  2. January
  3. February
  4. March
  5. April
  6. May
  7. June
  8. July
  9. August
  10. September
  11. October
  12. November
  13. December
  14. Letters to the Editor


The Flammarion engraving (image)

Year in Review

The Present Time, youngest-born of Eternity, child and heir of all the Past Times with their good and evil, and parent to all the Future…

Thomas Carlyle

As we near the end of this (not unusually) foul year of our Lord, 2013, which is also the first year of Radish, the Carlyle Club is pleased — no, compelled, I should say (no doubt by eldritch rites conducted ’neath solstitial alignment of the ’spheres), to attempt to sum up certain recent doings, which may be of interest to the reactionary — “neo-” if you prefer; in any case, he who, in these latter days, this wind-and-wolf age or Kali Yuga, still swears allegiance to Order; Cosmos; the Right Absolute.

Call it an Anti-Progress Report — wherein we identify three major trends: (1) dramatic expansion of neoreaction, both in the number of writers and in the depth and breadth of debate and discourse; (2) large numbers of pre-reactionaries discovering the Cathedral; and (3) the Cathedral discovering us reactionaries.

We also identify two minor and closely related trends: (4) broader recognition that “conservatism” is nothing more than neutered false opposition to progressivism; and (5) increased aggression by the ruling class against right-wingers, real and suspected.

So do keep an eye out as we go month by month through the year that was.

Formal Friday

“Formal Fridays” for “productivity, team spirit” and “general morale” (image)


The Cathedral discovers the Manosphere, just as Roosh Vörek predicted. The Independent warns us that Roosh himself is an official “hate group.” Daily Kos makes a slight miscalculation: “The best we have [sic] to confront these kinds of attitudes is to make them known to the public.” And Australia’s Daily Life cites Mill, Bentham and Rawls on “rights,” though somehow I doubt the author of OMG! That’s Not My Husband has actually read them. Martel (Alpha Is Assumed) wonders if this particular ’sphere is really ready for prime time:

For now, we’re only objects of dismissive mockery and scorn, mere annoyances. They hope to keep us on the fringes as long as possible, but they know they won’t be able to keep us hidden forever. Otherwise, they’d be happy to ignore us entirely.

Once the “tipping point” is reached and we have to be addressed, we will be vilified and slandered.

Nathan Wyatt (TakiMag) provides a working definition of what it means to take the red pill: “identifying and studying kernels of politically incorrect realism.”

Robert Merry, editor of The National Interest and author of Taking on the World and Sands of Empire, praises Oswald Spengler for his “uncanny foresight.”

In assessing our own time through the Spenglerian prism, a number of perceptions emerge. First, Spengler predicted with uncanny foresight a number of Western developments of the past century, including the rise of world-cities and the money culture, the emergence of a powerful feminism focused on the yearnings of the Ibsen woman, the force of money in politics, declining birthrates and the popular embrace of avant-garde cultural sensibilities, awash in cynicism and cosmopolitanism and bent on destroying the cultural verities of old.

Second, Spengler makes a powerful point when he says these are not characteristics and developments found in ascendant civilizations. On the contrary, many are signs of cultural and societal decadence and decline. Although the hallowed Idea of Progress has shrouded this truth from Western society, the reality is clear: the Western cultural decline, as understood and predicted by Spengler, is now complete.

Aaron Clarey (Captain Capitalism) publishes Enjoy the Decline and makes The Washington Times.

John Dickerson, political director for CBS News and chief political correspondent for Slate, says “Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.” (Dickerson is by no means unusual in that respect.)

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

The Journal News in Rockland County is forced to hire armed guards after printing the name and home address of every licensed local gun owner. Gawker pulls the same stunt in New York City.

Neo-Rousseauvian pop-science writer Jared Diamond professes his firm belief that “the few remaining tribes and nomad groups left on the planet,” particularly the ones in New Guinea, “have a great deal to teach us,” including “care and compassion, particularly for the elderly, and a concern for the environment that shames the west.”

On the other hand, The Sydney Morning Herald reports that “witch burning, torture and sorcery are still frighteningly common in Papua New Guinea.” Indeed, the country is “rife with violence, in part due to its tribal culture,” and will soon reinstate the death penalty after “a spate of horrific crimes against women,” including an American bird researcher raped by nine armed men, two elderly women tortured for three days and beheaded on suspicion of sorcery, and “a young mother stripped naked, doused with petrol and burned alive” for a like reason.

The Huffington Post characterizes the existence of racial differences in crime rates as “a jawdropping claim.”

A “reluctant racist” admits that “mass immigration” (i.e., Third World colonization) has destroyed Britain.

Ireland sentences a Zimbabwean rapist to a few years in prison.

A Central Criminal Court hearing in Cork heard that the 25-year-old had laughed in the woman’s face as he pinned her to a bed and raped her.

The Irish Times reports that the court heard he then told her that he was HIV positive and had hepatitis C.


Justice Paul Carney told Dube that he had abused the woman’s hospitality by returning to rape her when she was alone in the house less than an hour after she and her fiancé had invited him in for coffee as it was raining.


Justice Carney said the woman was entitled to ‘safety and sanctuary’ in her own home. […]

“I used to be a happy, carefree, trusting person before the rape. I don’t know if I will ever be that person again.”


Egypt’s new and improved and much more democratic post-Arab Spring government loses control of Port Said.

Democracy is in a crisis, according to political “scientist” Ivan Krastev (TED):

Paradoxically, part of the problems of democracy is that today almost everybody claims his sympathy for the principle of self-government. Elections are the only source of legitimate government. Even religious fundamentalists who still insist that power derives from God tend to agree that the best way to interpret God’s will is to count the ballots on election day. In short, democracy is the only game in town but many people start asking themselves: is it a game worth playing? Do the voters have the power to bring meaningful change? Could they change, for example, economic policies or could they only change governments who at the end of the day implement the same economic policy?

Victor Davis Hanson (PJ Media) talks hypocrisy and hipness; in other words, high status.

In a shallow and superficial America you can make all the money you like without being dubbed selfish or greedy, frequent all the most exclusive resorts without being a one-percenter, and commit all the politically incorrect sins you wish without being tagged a reactionary — but you better try to be hip first.

Al Gore sells his TV station to Qatar for 500 million dollars.

Environmentalist Mark Lynas changes his mind about genetically modified food.

This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag — this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends.

“Climate science” continues not to be science.

Matt Forney, formerly known as Ferdinand Bardamu, publishes Three Years of Hate.

Scientists feel the need to check if men prefer to have sex with slender women (they do), and social pseudoscientists are horrified to discover that some women still want to raise families.

Michael Shermer, editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine, is surprised, like Lavoisier and Condorcet before him, to find his own head upon the chopping block of progress. No real lessons are learned, of course:

It involves a McCarthy-like witch hunt within secular communities to root out the last vestiges of sexism, racism, and bigotry of any kind, real or imagined. Although this unfortunate trend has produced a backlash against itself by purging from its ranks the likes of such prominent advocates as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, I contend that this is in fact a sign of moral progress. […]

Perhaps I should have spoken out, because now the inquisition has been turned on me. […]

I shall close with a warning about the propensity for social movements to turn on themselves in purges that distract from the original goals [my emphasis] and destroy the movement from within.

“That isn’t purging,” cackles semi-professional witch-hunter Ophelia Benson: not being “the KGB nor even the Stasi,” feminists just “don’t have the power to ‘purge’ people.” Foul-mouthed Christian-hating court biologist P.Z. Myers, Benson’s partner in doxing, howls right along with her in true Krokodil fashion:

Astonishing. Apparently, criticizing anything Mr Michael Shermer says is now a “McCarthy-like witch hunt,” an “inquisition” with the goal of “purging” Shermer from the ranks of…what? He’s a publisher and author. Is there a threat to take his word processor away?

Matt Forney’s anti-feminist satire provokes an attack by Anonymous cyberterrorists.

Top feminist researchers discover a new, more deliciously public way of humiliating “nice guys.” ESPN is forced to apologize for calling a model “beautiful.”

Nick Cohen (The Observer) shows us the underbelly of the far left in Britain.

Only when it’s too late do women learn that the alternative disciplinary system of Marxist-Leninists exists to control them and let the leaders do as they please. […]

Anna Chen saw the misogyny up close. She stopped working as a comic and poet in the early 2000s to devote every waking hour slaving for the Socialist Alliance, Stop the War and other SWP front organisations. “Because the revolution comes first, human beings are just disposable,” she told me. “I was struck by how sexless and ugly the leading men in the SWP were. But they always had women. If you slept with one of them, they promoted you. It was as basic as that.”

Before the Socialist Workers party, there was the Workers Revolutionary party. Thousands went to its rallies in the 70s, drawn by the presence of Vanessa Redgrave and her late brother, Corin. The party was nothing more than a vehicle that promoted the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi — for money — and supplied a stream of women for its supreme leader, Gerry Healy, to enjoy. It fell apart in 1986 when 26 women came forward to describe the “gross sexual abuse” they had suffered at his hands. In a poignant account that has stayed with me, one exhausted party worker described how she realised that she had wasted her life the moment Healy loomed over her.

(See also: Bill Ayers; Occupy Wall Street.)

The sexual-revolutionary left continues to devour its own as feminist Julie Burchill (The Observer) wages a vicious battle of identity politics with “the trannies.”

Educated beyond all common sense and honesty, it was a hoot to see the screaming mimis accuse Suze of white feminist privilege.

British “Liberal Democrat” MP and former “Equalities Minister” Lynne Featherstone demands that Burchill be sacked.

Science fiction/fantasy writer Theodore Beale, also known as “Vox Day,” announces his candidacy for president of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA).

Suspense/horror writer Edward Trimnell assures Beale that “real conservatism,” the one true false opposition, is neither “sexist” nor “racist” — and accidentally makes a good point in the process:

We conservatives don’t help our cause by embracing the crude collectivist tactics of the Left.

The newly launched Veritas Lounge points out that Trimnell’s “conservatism” is “essentially a waste of time as a distinct political philosophy from the reigning spirit of liberalism.”

If one is really interested in countering the juggernaut of leftist thought, one must go outside the Enlightenment tradition, because leftist thought is simply the purer, faster, less compromising manifestation of that tradition. It isn’t the left, or the democrats or labour that is wrong — it’s the underlying philosophy, and it’s a philosophy that the republicans and the tories share almost completely.

Economist Jerry Bowyer (Forbes) dubs the false opposition “kept conservatives.”

The kept conservative’s announced job is to represent the conservative point of view, but their real job is to give the illusion of balance without really challenging any of the core tenets of liberalism. They spend lots of time “reinventing” the Republican Party, and the new invention is always the same: more liberal.


They are the loyal opposition: loyal, that is, to the regime, not to the people. They are not the solution. In fact they are more of a problem than the liberals. […] True resistance to socialism will not come from such an opposition force as our current conservative ruling elite. Better no opposition than faux opposition.

A West Point (the U.S. Military Academy) think tank warns America about the danger posed by “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement:

They support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government.

Hipsters institute “Formal Fridays.” (Can the 20th century please be over?)

Noam Chomsky kills Aaron Swartz.

Nick Land explains the “left singularity,” a concept introduced by James Donald.

Alfred W. Clark, Galton, and Vinteuil launch Occam’s Razor. Bryce Laliberté launches his own blog with an ‘Anarcho-Papist Manifesto.’ Wesley Morganston (Nydwracu) floats the idea of a “reactionary web magazine,” which will later be realized as Theden. The Carlyle Club publishes the first issue of Radish.

Oh, and the fairly epic Ann Barnhardt begins blogging.

Fall of Greece

“Europe in the trap” — better manufacture some more consent (image)


Hugo Award-winning science fiction writer Charles Stross discovers the Cathedral.

Something has gone wrong with our political processes, on a global scale. But what? It’s obviously subtle — we haven’t been on the receiving end of a bunch of jack-booted fascists or their communist equivalents organizing putsches. […]

Here’s a hypothesis: Representative democracy is what’s happening. Unfortunately, democracy is broken. There’s a hidden failure mode, we’ve landed in it, and we probably won’t be able to vote ourselves out of it.

“Please, man,” Moldbug demurs. “Don’t complain about the dish you ordered.”

What happened? Um, the revolution happened. Slowly, it’s true.

Angelo Codevilla (Forbes), author of America’s Ruling Class, sees the Republican base abandoned.

Representation can be perverted. Some regimes (formerly the Communists, and currently the Islamists) allow dissent from the ruling class to be represented only by parties approved by the ruling class. […] The Republican leadership’s preference for acting as part of the ruling class rather than as representatives of voters who feel set upon has begun to produce the sort of soft pre-emption of opposition and bitterness between rulers and ruled that occurs necessarily wherever representation is mocked.


Some Democrats seem to believe that taking these Republicans unto themselves while deeming the remainder “unworthy,” withdrawing “tolerance toward [their] regressive opinions,” will crush serious opposition. Maybe. Surely however, incorporating the Republican Establishment into the ruling class leaves the dissidents free coherently to pursue their own vision, and with a monopoly of opposition.


This representation is happening by default. It is aided by the internet, which makes it possible to spread ideas to which the educational Establishment gives short shrift and which the ruling class media shun. In short, the internet helps undermine the ruling class’ near-homogenization of American intellectual life, its closing of the American mind. Not by reason but by bureaucratic force majeure had America’s educational Establishment isolated persons who deviate from it, cutting access to a sustaining flow of ideas that legitimize their way of life. But the internet allows marginalized dissenters to reason with audiences of millions. Ideas have consequences.

Megan McArdle (The Daily Beast) muses on the ignorance of journalists and America’s mandarin class.

All elites are good at rationalizing their eliteness, whether it’s meritocracy or “the divine right of kings.” The problem is the mandarin elite has some good arguments. They really are very bright and hardworking. It’s just that they’re also prone to be conformist, risk averse, obedient, and good at echoing the opinions of authority, because that is what this sort of examination system selects for.


And like all elites, they believe that they not only rule because they can, but because they should. Even [my emphasis] many quite left-wing folks do not fundamentally question the idea that the world should be run by highly verbal people who test well and turn their work in on time. They may think that machine operators should have more power and money in the workplace, and salesmen and accountants should have less. But if they think there’s anything wrong with the balance of power in the system we all live under, it is that clever mandarins do not have enough power to bend that system to their will. For the good of everyone else, of course. Not that they spend much time with everyone else, but they have excellent imaginations.

Marxist political sociologist Claus Offe (Eurozine) is a firm believer in European “democracy,” with an emphasis on mind control and class warfare; and a fierce opponent of “populism,” meaning actual democracy:

The crisis is so serious because of the seemingly insoluble contradiction it presents. In simple terms: the course of action so urgently needed is extremely unpopular and thus cannot be implemented by democratic means. […]

Before the preferences of voters can be evaluated, they must be formed [my emphasis] in the light of the normative principles of social justice just as much as that of a sober understanding of the situation we find ourselves in, as well as of feasible courses of action and their consequences. […] Referenda and plebiscites in the member states are unlikely to be the best way of democratically securing the massive solidarity measures we need at the European level.


In order to really shape voter choices via argument and persuasion, the parties must be ready and willing to tackle all kinds of fears, distrust, short-sightedness and suspicion. […]

It would take two changes to do away with these received opinions and knee-jerk responses. In the first place, the state-versus-state mindset of “methodical nationalism” in most debates about Europe must at the very least be supplemented by a view in which Europeans see one another not primarily through the prism of nationality but rather as individuals and members of particular social classes. In the second place, European law must allow member states to implement social redistribution measures internally without being penalized in the current competition between EU member states over fiscal and social policy.

Victor Davis Hanson (PJ Media) brings up some revolutions we missed — like this one:

About four years ago, the media just dissipated. Gone, buried. Did we notice our newsreaders are virtual government employees?

Mark Steyn (The Daily Caller) is similarly hard on the official press:

Essentially, Obama has achieved the same relationship with the press and the media and public information that the Soviet Communist Party had to jam radio transmissions and smash printing presses to achieve.

Jezebel, appropriately enough, writes ‘An Idiot’s Guide to Free Speech,’ in which we learn that the formal freedom of speech will not “protect you” from “the Right to Anonymity” (sic):

People are allowed to try and figure out who you are and post your information on the internet. No one is entitled to anonymity. It’s up to you whether to make it easy for people to find you.


If you publicly express yourself in a manner that is offensive, hurtful, or just plain dumb, strangers might contact your friends/family/school/employer and tell them what you did.

As first-world birth rates decline, feminist Amanda Marcotte argues that in order to save “middle-class white women” from “a life as our husbands’ support staff” — save them from having children, that is, so they can enjoy life as a corporation’s support staff instead — we should implement bold new economic policies that will somehow compensate for extinction.

If women don’t want to have more children, then instead of abandoning women’s equality as a goal, we should rework our economic system so it doesn’t rely on a steadily growing population to function.

Feminists celebrate fifty years of Betty Friedan destroying families and generally ruining women in every possible way.

I think, though, that I didn’t read The Feminine Mystique precisely because it had seeped so deeply into American culture [my emphasis] that I figured I had already digested its message.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Chinese researchers are looking for “the roots of intelligence in our DNA.”

But critics worry that genetic data related to IQ could easily be misconstrued — or misused. Research into the science of intelligence has been used in the past “to target particular racial groups or individuals and delegitimize them,” said Jeremy Gruber, president of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a watchdog group based in Cambridge, Mass. “I’d be very concerned that the reductionist and deterministic trends that still are very much present in the world of genetics would come to the fore in a project like this.”

Semi-literate, professionally swarthy Maxine Waters (D-California) attempts to explain sequestration.

Subsidized electric cars, meant “to cut fossil fuel use and address global warming,” continue not to work. On the plus side, global warming continues not to be a real thing.

Christopher Dorner kills himself (and several others).

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad must go. USG (America’s beloved sovereign) starts supplying Syrian rebels with “non-lethal aid.”

Nick Land, author of the seminal series The Dark Enlightenment, moves to Outside in; it will soon become the premier neoreactionary discussion forum. Avenging Red Hand launches his own blog; he will later establish the Golden Circle reactionary email list. Sunshine Mary takes up arms at The Woman and the Dragon, though she will soon move to new digs. Peter Taylor offers a gentle introduction to Moldbug’s own Gentle Introduction.

Jordanian soldiers stand guard on Syria border

Jordan guards the Syrian border (image)


Multi-millionaire tech entrepreneur Sam Altman worries that the magic of democracy is fading, and letting large numbers of narcissistic idiots vote for other narcissistic idiots is somehow no longer making the world better in every conceivable way.

Everyone feels screwed, and almost no one feels like the government is doing a great job. We can’t agree on anything, and anyone that proposes doing something radically different doesn’t get elected.

But democracy […] worked in the US for a long time — we were able to make real progress, pass budgets, be the world superpower, evolve as a country, etc. Something has changed.


All of that said, in absolute sense I’d much rather live in the world of today than 1950 — it’s tough for me to imagine living in a world without the Internet. However, in the same way that one can feel acceleration but not velocity, people seem more sensitive to the annual rate of improvement than the absolute quality of life. So even though people should be happier in an absolutely better world, no one wants to stand still on the hedonic treadmill.

Moldbug insists that Sam Altman is not, in fact, a blithering idiot.

What I find exceptionally terrifying is that Altman’s blithering idiocy looks and sounds exactly like sober good sense. Read it. You’ll agree.

The basic problem with our society is a disconnect between consensus reality and actual reality. We actually have no shortage of natural leaders. But they cannot actually lead us anywhere. They are operating in consensus reality rather than actual reality. Their joysticks are not plugged in. When the consensus is nonsense, sober good sense is nonsense. Nonsense is no use to anyone.

In an interview with Joshua Kurlantzick, author of Democracy in Retreat, the Los Angeles Times announces that democracy has been “on the wane” — the whole world “losing faith in” it — for ten years now, and wonders:

How do effective leaders battle the “nostalgia” factor, when people who have suffered under authoritarian rule lose enthusiasm for their new-found rights and freedoms because their day-to-day needs become a struggle? [My emphasis.]

Hey, at least now they get to cast worthless ballots for idiot narcissists.

Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex) puts ‘Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell,’ which, apart from a “trigger warning” for “racism” and the usual silliness about King Leopold II, is not bad at all.

Western society has been moving gradually further to the left for the past several hundred years at least. It went from divine right of kings to constitutional monarchy to libertarian democracy to federal democracy to New Deal democracy through the civil rights movement to social democracy to ???. If you catch up to society as it’s pushing leftward and say “Hey guys, I think we should go leftward even faster! Two times faster! No, fifty times faster!”, society will call you a bold revolutionary iconoclast and give you a professorship.

If you start suggesting maybe it should switch directions and move the direction opposite the one the engine is pointed, then you might have a bad time.

Stupidity is on the rise in Western society, and Orthosphere writer James Kalb (Crisis), author of The Tyranny of Liberalism and Against Inclusiveness, chalks it up to our “rejection of transcendent standards,” enforcement of the “ideals of diversity and inclusiveness, which draw their institutional strength from the technocratic desire to turn people into interchangeable components,” “consumerism, comfort, and lifestyle libertarianism,” “consumer goods, social programs, and industrially-produced pop culture,” “electronic diversions,” and “the distance between cause and effect in a complex globalized society,” among other things. Paging Tyler Durden

James E. Miller (Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada) writes an excellent, straightforward defense of monarchy, citing Rothbard, Hoppe and Nock.

If the choice is between monarchy and democracy, I say give me a king. I have enough respect for myself to wish to live under the truth rather than fiction.

Steve Sailer uncovers “micro-aggressions.” (This is not satire. This is real stupid.)

Submission: Hey! White girl! I love you! You are beautiful!

Shouted to me on the street 15+ times a day during my study abroad experience in Nicaragua. I never truly understood what it meant to feel objectified until this experience.

Comment: This submission is very, VERY problematic…as much as I sympathize with her plight I’m calling BULLS*** on this woman ~never TRULY feeling objectified~ until some random brown guys in a foreign country hollered at her…subconscious racism/xenophobia much?

Comment: This complaint of a microaggression is a microagression in and of itself. It is perpetuating the idea that “white beauty” is ideal and that Latinos are machismo & objectify women.

Charlotte and Harriet Childress (The Washington Post), authors of Clueless at the Top, invite us to “imagine if [sic] African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year.” (Again: not satire.)

Aleks Eror (Vice) interviews evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller on China’s “creepy-ass” new biotech project.

[Eror:] It’s not exactly news that China is setting itself up as a new global superpower, is it? While Western civilization chokes on its own gluttony like a latter-day Marlon Brando, China continues to buy up American debt and lock away the world’s natural resources. But now, not content to simply laugh and make jerk-off signs as they pass us on the geopolitical highway, they’ve also developed a state-endorsed genetic-engineering project.


How does Western research in genetics compare to China’s?

[Miller:] We’re pretty far behind. We have the same technical capabilities, the same statistical capabilities to analyze the data, but they’re collecting the data on a much larger scale and seem to be capable of transforming the scientific findings into government policy and consumer genetic testing much more easily than we are. Technically and scientifically we could be doing this, but we’re not.

Why not?

We have ideological biases that say, “Well, this could be troubling, we shouldn’t be meddling with nature, we shouldn’t be meddling with God.” I just attended a debate in New York a few weeks ago about whether or not we should outlaw genetic engineering in babies and the audience was pretty split. In China, 95 percent of an audience would say, “Obviously you should make babies genetically healthier, happier, and brighter!” There’s a big cultural difference.

Obama tells the prime minister of Israel that “Assad must go.” USG trains Syrian rebels in neighboring Jordan.

Jared Taylor (American Renaissance) questions the possibility of democracy in America.

The Last Psychiatrist tells us more than we ever wanted to know about Cosmo.

The single greatest obstacle to turning women into fully productive members of the workforce, i.e. batteries, is not men obstructing them but their persistent belief in metaphysics. If the thing that is keeping women out of the underpaid labor force is “family,” then family must go, and if what pulls them towards family is love then love has to be a fantasy.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re worldly, you’re cynical, your skeptical. You don’t go for all this love crap…. You’ve figured out that love was a construct pushed by the patriarchy to keep women tied to the home, to deny them orgasms with multiple penises and vaginas; to prevent them from getting jobs, money, power. Am I right? Ok, then let’s play by your rules, let’s say you’re right that love was used to keep women down — then what does today’s suppression of love signify? Could it be that the abandonment of love doesn’t also serve the system’s purpose? Or is only the former the trick, the latter a discovery made by your genius + sophistication + expert reading of human emotions?

You think you’ve figured out that true love doesn’t exist, that it’s all been a kind of romantic lie sold by TV and the media, that real life isn’t like that; but what I am telling you is that you didn’t figure this out, you were TOLD this. Now, constantly, by every modern TV show, by Lori Gottlieb and the zombies at The Atlantic, by your friends, by your parents — the trick was to get you to think you figured it out on your own.

Donal Graeme begins blogging. Larry Auster dies.

Boston Marathon bombing

Thank you, vibrant diversity, for enriching us so (image)


Neoreaction experiences what Nick Land will later dub a “Cambrian Explosion.”

  • Veteran right-winger Anomaly UK writes a concise introduction to neoreaction.
  • James Donald defines Dark Enlightenment and contemplates a restoration.
  • Spandrell divides the new reaction into three branches: traditionalist, nationalist, and capitalist.

Meanwhile, Scipio Germanicus launches The Reactionary Thinker, and Calculated Bravery enters the fray.

  • Nick Land relabels the trichotomy: theonomist, ethno-nationalist, and techno-commercialist.
  • Frost comes up with three red sub-pills of his own: Christian, secular, and nihilistic.
  • Anomaly UK contemplates reactionary unity in light of Spandrell’s trichotomy.

Scharlach, blasting off to Habitable Worlds, reports that neoreaction “has begun to go ‘meta’ on itself.”

Scholars of the Dark Enlightenment are beginning to ask self-reflexive questions about who they are, where divisions lie, and what it all means.

He offers his own, visual classification scheme:

Scharlach's Visualizing Neoreaction

That same day, Amos & Gromar opens its doors.

Which brings us to the end of April. The explosion will carry on until the end of May.

In the meantime, Donald Kagan (The Wall Street Journal), “Yale’s great classicist,” admits that “democracy may have had its day.” He lays much of the blame on the so-called higher education system.

Universities, he proposed, are failing students and hurting American democracy. Curricula are “individualized, unfocused and scattered.” On campus, he said, “I find a kind of cultural void, an ignorance of the past, a sense of rootlessness and aimlessness.” Rare are “faculty with atypical views,” he charged. “Still rarer is an informed understanding of the traditions and institutions of our Western civilization and of our country and an appreciation of their special qualities and values.”

“The world is marching toward anarchy,” according to geopolitical analyst Robert Kaplan (Real Clear Politics).

Everyone loves equality: equality of races, of ethnic groups, of sexual orientations, and so on. The problem is, however, that in geopolitics equality usually does not work very well.


The fact is that domination of one sort or another, tyrannical or not, has a better chance of preventing the outbreak of war than a system in which no one is really in charge; where no one is the top dog, so to speak. That is why Columbia University’s Kenneth Waltz, arguably America’s pre-eminent realist, says that the opposite of “anarchy” is not stability, but “hierarchy.”

Hierarchy eviscerates equality; hierarchy implies that some are frankly “more equal” than others, and it is this formal inequality — where someone, or some state or group, has more authority and power than others — that prevents chaos. For it is inequality itself that often creates the conditions for peace.


Unless some force can, against considerable odds, reinstitute hierarchy — be it an American hegemon acting globally, or an international organization acting regionally or, say, an Egyptian military acting internally — we will have more fluidity, more equality and therefore more anarchy to look forward to. This is profoundly disturbing, because civilization abjures anarchy. In his novel Billy Budd (1924), Herman Melville deeply laments the fact that even beauty itself must be sacrificed for the maintenance of order. Without order — without hierarchy — there is nothing.

Robert Samuelson (The Washington Post) heralds “the twilight of entitlement”: the demise of a post-1960s mind-set based on “optimistic and, ultimately, unrealistic assumptions,” e.g.,

that lifestyle choices — to marry, have children or divorce — would expand individual freedom without inflicting adverse social consequences. Wrong.

Ron Unz identifies America’s Pravda.

We always ridicule the 98 percent voter support that dictatorships frequently achieve in their elections and plebiscites, yet perhaps those secret-ballot results may sometimes be approximately correct, produced by the sort of overwhelming media control that leads voters to assume there is no possible alternative to the existing regime. Is such an undemocratic situation really so different from that found in our own country, in which our two major parties agree on such a broad range of controversial issues and, being backed by total media dominance, routinely split 98 percent of the vote? A democracy may provide voters with a choice, but that choice is largely determined by the information citizens receive from their media.

Joel Kotkin (Orange County Register), author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050 and The Rise of Postfamilialism, insists on personifying every single thing that’s wrong with “conservatism.” In this case:

There’s nothing fundamentally unRepublican about class warfare. After all, the party — led by what was then called Radical Republicans – waged a very successful war against the old slave-holding aristocracy; there’s nothing to be ashamed of in that conquest.

22 leaders of national atheist organizations “pledge to make our best efforts toward improving the tone and substance of online discussions” and “to promote productive debate and discussion.” The ever-so-rational and skeptical freethinkers at Secular Woman reject it outright for giving “equal voice” to “sexist ideas and beliefs.”

As a secular feminist organization committed to understanding and exposing societal constructs that contribute to the inequality of women and other oppressed groups, we have no desire to listen to [my emphasis], respect, or continuously debunk overtly sexist viewpoints. Just as most scientists are not interested in debating the beliefs of creationists, we are not interested in debating gender-biased, racist, homophobic, or trans*phobic beliefs. […] Those of us working to challenge systemic sexism should be under no obligation to listen to or be more charitable to our opponents.

These “overtly sexist viewpoints” and “gender-biased beliefs” include evolutionary psychology; see, e.g., Rebecca Watson, Amanda Marcotte, Lindy West, and Sharon Begley. I refer you as well to evolutionary psychologist Anne Campbell in Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists:

For many feminists in the social sciences, evolutionary psychologists are still seen as the enemy. The disagreement is not about the desirability of social change, but about where the causes of gender differences can be found. Unlike social constructionists, evolutionary psychologists accept that beliefs reside in the mind and not just in discourse and language. Traditional empirical method may not be perfect but it has the advantage of being a self-correcting system. Liberal feminists identify causes that are proximate and external but ultimately incompatible with a mass of empirical research. To acknowledge the impact of culture is not the same as saying that gender has no biological basis and that the nature of men and women is wholly constructed by society.

Meanwhile, novelist Sarah Hoyt watches the long march of the cultural Marxists:

It’s become impolite to say in public you’re a Tea Partier, for instance. The slur of sexual innuendo, followed by never substantiated rumors of violence, have stained the name, though there is no truth at all in it. At the same time, unless you are with friends and know them well enough, it is against politeness to refer to Occupiers as “Louse infested would be communists” — though it is true of the vast majority of them.

Because that’s not how the stories present those groups. And people want to belong to the majority — to the “normal.”

Mark Steyn (National Review) heralds the end of tolerance.

The tolerance enforcers will not tolerate dissent; the diversity celebrators demand a ruthless homogeneity. Much of the progressive agenda — on marriage, immigration, and much else — involves not winning the argument but ruling any debate out of bounds.

Malcolm Pollack reinvents the left singularity.

Theodore Beale takes a break from his SFWA election campaign to diagnose the “conservative” blogosphere’s terminal illness:

An even more important factor is the sapping of right-wing energy by thirteen straight years of relentless betrayal of conservative principles by the Republican Party. Libertarian realists like me are still going strong, since we never expected any better, but how much enthusiasm can conservatives expect to muster in support of nominal leaders like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney? The political enthusiasm simply isn’t there anymore. It’s not so much the right-wing blogosphere that is dying as the Republican one.

Progressive novelist and literature professor Adam Roberts (The Guardian), while acknowledging the existence of “perfectly decent, book-loving rightwing people,” worries about their continued participation in science fiction, alluding to a “war” for the genre’s “political soul.”

Alterity is fundamental to SF: it is a poetics of otherness and diversity. Now, it so happens that the encounter with “otherness” — racially, ethnically, in terms of gender, sexual orientation, disability and trans identity — has been the main driver of social debate for the last half‑century or more. […]

On the other hand, many fans define SF as the literature of scientific extrapolation. There are those who think of “science” as ideologically neutral, simply the most authoritative picture of the universe available to humanity. The problem is that “authoritative” has a nasty habit of eliding with “authoritarian” when transferred into human social relations. Rightwing political affiliation comes in many forms, but for many rightwingers, respect for authority is a central aspect of their worldview.


Conservatism is defined by its respect for the past. The left has always been more interested in the future — specifically, in a better future. Myriad militaristic SF books and films suggest the most interesting thing to do with the alien is style it as an invading monster and empty thousands of rounds of ammunition into it. But the best SF understands that there are more interesting things to do with the alien than that.

Harold Meyerson (The Washington Post), lacking any formal Buddhist training, manages nevertheless to attain a perfect lack of self-awareness:

As the New York Times reported Sunday, the Koch brothers told a group of like-minded money men at a closed-door conclave in Aspen three years ago that the right needed to invest more in grass-roots activism, politics and media. Given the nature of the Kochs’ investment in grass-roots activism and politics, that doesn’t bode well for the kind of fact-based journalism that most American newspapers strive to practice.

Joan Walsh, author of What’s the Matter with White People?, teaches us “how to talk about white people.”

As whites become just one of several American minorities in the near future — brown babies already outnumber white babies in the nation’s nurseries — I’ve been thinking more about the ways language can ease our transition to a multiracial America. […]

Let’s start with one term used occasionally for the Obama alliance: the “coalition of the ascendant,” as the National Journal’s Ronald Brownstein calls it. That’s fine for a journalist, but when used by Democrats it sounds like a snub to white voters: “We’re the future and you’re not.”

Awkward! We’ll also have to tone down on the racial hatred — eventually:

Just as social justice-minded people have learned not to generalize about African-Americans, Latinos and Asians, we’ll have to learn the same thing about whites. In my work over the years, I’ve heard “white” used, without a modifier, as a synonym for clueless, out of touch, even racist.

But we mustn’t forget about all that “privilege” white people apparently have.

Whites no longer have the highest family incomes of all racial groups; that distinction belongs to Asian-Americans, who also lead whites in college attendance and completion today. That’s due to hard work [my emphasis], not any kind of artificial advantage. […]

None of this is to deny white privilege. Not enough white people recognize the colorless, odorless oxygen of advantage [my emphasis] they enjoy due to this country’s grim history of slavery and persistent discrimination.

John Derbyshire (TakiMag) would like to know why racism isn’t cool.

Time was, protest meant brave dissenters standing in proud defiance against the massed forces of Establishment power. Nowadays those massed forces believe exactly what the protesters outside our hotel believe, and they propagate it with unflagging zeal through the institutions they control: the media, business, labor, the big political parties, all branches of all federal, state, and municipal government (including the military), and all universities, colleges, schools, kindergartens, and playgroups.

Richard Hernandez (PJ Media) wants to use diversity to maximize freedom — but in a good way!

The process which has dumbed down the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and blinded the FBI is essentially the same: that of removing information from the system in order to make it predictable, manageable, and nonthreatening. To make it consistent with the internal ideology of the human institution. Institutions do not always seek to find the truth. More often than not they seek to find the approved solution.

But to really learn you have to be prepared to listen to what you don’t want to hear. The future only contains new information if it tells you something you don’t know. But bureaucracies want to make all new knowledge predictable, consistent with the existing narrative. And homogenization destroys information.

Thirteen female prison guards turn over control of a Baltimore jail to gang leaders.

Chechnya’s wretched refuse blows up the Boston Marathon.

The American Interest explains the ludicrous restrictions imposed on USG by stupid old classical international law (until Woodrow Wilson murdered it).

There was lots of talk back in the heady days of Orange and Rose revolutions that American NGOs would fund, train, energize and equip Russian society for color revolution of its own. This all sounded to the Kremlin very much like a planned and orchestrated use of diplomatic personnel as subversives to overthrow the regime; that’s a big no-no in traditional diplomacy.

USG doubles “non-lethal aid” to Syrian rebels, expanding the definition of that term to include “battlefield support equipment such as body armor and night-vision goggles.”

Libertarian writer Richard Maybury casually mentions that America backed the wrong side in World War II.

Let me point out that the largest ally President Roosevelt had during the war was Stalin’s Soviet Socialists. Except for Obama, Franklin Roosevelt was America’s most socialist president. Instead of staying out of the war and letting the German and Soviet barbarians pound each other to dust on the plains of central Europe, Franklin Roosevelt abandoned neutrality and in June 1941 — five months before Pearl Harbor — announced he would back the socialist Stalin. Stalin was the worst known evil in history. In his book about the true nature of old world governments, called Death by Government, historian R.J. Rummel reports the most accurate estimate of Hitler’s murders is 20.9 million, and Stalin’s death toll was 42.7 million. Franklin Roosevelt backed Stalin, so the worst evil in history won the war, Stalin.

Geoffrey Miller on game

Applied evolutionary psychology can be “morally tricky” (image)


The Cambrian Explosion continues, as More Right kicks off with essays by Michael Anissimov and Samo Burja (also known as “Konkvistador”), and Raptros fires up his own blog.

Nick Steve's Spandrellian trichotomy

Nick Steves, still crafting “reactionary consensus,” promptly creates The Reactivity Place.

Ash begins blogging (under his real name, even).

  • Notable commenter Handle discovers Darkest Enlightenment over at Foseti’s place.
  • James Donald talks God and game.
  • Scharlach introduces myth and rhetoric.
  • Handle drifts over to Wesley Morganston’s place to distill the essence of the new reaction:

To favor the Truth, no matter how ugly or dark that truth or its implications.

  • Michael Anissimov reconciles reactionism with transhumanism.
  • Spandrell puts the “neo” in neoreaction.
  • The Carlyle Club releases ‘Heroes of the Dark Enlightenment,’ immortalizing several authors of interest (to the Darkly Enlightened) in a satirical fantasy role-playing game.
  • All neoreactionary blogs everywhere are immediately swamped by swarms of hipster nerds ironically touting hereditary monarchy. Experts agree: all is lost, everything is ruined forever, and it’s all my fault.
  • Discussion erupts at Foseti, with further commentary at Jim’s Blog and The Reactivity Place.

Francis St. Pol hoists the Banner of Cosmos.

  • Spandrell and Nick Land can’t tell left from right sometimes.
  • Anomaly UK wages a war of ideas.
  • Frost talks specialization in this, “the opening salvo in the Cambrian explosion of crimethink.”
  • Heartiste takes aim at the “lords of lies”: the Cathedral and the Hivemind.
  • James Goulding helpfully puts everything in the form of a comet:

Goulding's Comet

In the end, we don’t need to beat the left. We only need to beat the right — a much easier goal. The only thing that can save The Cathedral is conservatism. We can stop it.

  • Foseti exposes progressives among us! (Gasps all round.)

Which brings us to the end of May.

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller returns, talking game in Wired.

The seduction community has become a vanguard of applied Darwinism.

Jason Richwine is persecuted by the ruling class to distract us from the colonization of the United States by the dregs of Central America. The “conservative” Heritage Foundation promptly fires him, leading to a harsh appraisal by Jared Taylor (American Renaissance):

I have a simple question for people who call themselves “conservative”: When are you going to stop letting the Left tell you what you cannot think? In other words, when are you going to be men instead of lapdogs?

Mexican supremacist Janet Murguía (The Huffington Post), president of the National Council of “the Race,” thirsts for blood.

Jason Richwine’s resignation is welcome news, but we expect more.

She is horrified to learn that some of Darwin’s work survived the Boasian revolution in the social pseudosciences.

It turns out he is a champion of an antiquated theory we thought has gone the way of the early 20th century — that somehow there is a link between race or ethnicity and IQ.

Mestizos continue to be genetically less intelligent than whites.

Professionally swarthy “race expert” Ta-Nehisi Coates (The Atlantic), apparently terrified to the brink of madness by the specter of “miscegenation bans,” takes this as an opportunity to introduce his readers to Harvard historian Lothrop Stoddard’s excellent book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1920).

There can be no doubt that at present the colored races are increasing very much faster than the white. […]

On the other hand, none of the colored races shows perceptible signs of declining birth-rate, all tending to breed up to the limits of available subsistence. Such checks as now limit the increase of colored populations are wholly external, like famine, disease, and tribal warfare. But by a curious irony of fate, the white man has long been busy removing these checks to colored multiplication. […]

Now what must be the inevitable result of all this? It can mean only one thing: a tremendous and steadily augmenting outward thrust of surplus colored men from overcrowded colored homelands. […]

These mighty racial tides flow from the most elemental of vital urges: self-expansion and self-preservation. Both outward thrust of expanding life and counter-thrust of threatened life are equally normal phenomena. To condemn the former as “criminal” and the latter as “selfish” is either silly or hypocritical and tends to envenom with unnecessary rancor what objective fairness might keep a candid struggle, inevitable yet alleviated by mutual comprehension and respect. This is no mere plea for “sportsmanship”; it is a very practical matter. There are critical times ahead; times in which intense race-pressures will engender high tensions and perhaps wars. If men will keep open minds and will eschew the temptation to regard those opposing their desires to defend or possess respectively as impious fiends, the struggles will lose half their bitterness, and the wars (if wars there must be) will be shorn of half their ferocity.

In Scientific American’s worst-ever article, “science journalist” John Horgan demands that the government ban politically inconvenient science.

Institutional review boards (IRBs), which must approve research involving human subjects carried out by universities and other organizations, should reject proposed research that will promote racial theories of intelligence, because the harm of such research — which fosters racism even if not motivated by racism — far outweighs any alleged benefits.


Some clever critics of my post might accuse me of hypocrisy, because these articles present esearch [sic] on race and and [sic] should be subject to my proposed ban. Obviously I’m trying to eliminate research that reinforces rather than counteracting [sic] racism. I mean, Duh.

Actual scientist Gregory Cochran, co-author of The 10,000 Year Explosion, replies:

There are problems with this idea. Not just that freedom of enquiry is a thing of value, and that John, if given the chance, would exchange his soul for a pile of dung — and be right to do so. No, enforcement of this policy entails technical difficulties. For one thing, essentially all IRBs already try to ban such research, but they don’t do a very good job, because they don’t know enough about the subject. Probably nobody does. For example, not so long ago people felt free to speculate that modern humans might have picked a few useful alleles from Neanderthals — including ones that increased intelligence. That was before it was found that there is substantial Neanderthal admixture only in non-Africans.


I can see two possible ways of addressing the problem. One is to end all science. Horgan might like that: he thinks that there isn’t much more to find out anyhow. The other solution is to find out exactly what it is that we don’t want anyone to know: find the true causes of ethnic differences in cognition and personality. […] We don’t have to worry about the minefield being empty: people like Horgan know damn well what they expect research to find — if they thought there was nothing there, they wouldn’t worry about it!

A Cheerios commercial featuring a multiracial family (black male/white female, obviously) provokes a backlash.

Camille Gibson, vice president of marketing for Cheerios, said it’s the first time the ad campaign that focuses on family moments has featured an interracial couple, with General Mills Inc. casting the actors to reflect the changing U.S. population.

“We felt like we were reflecting an American family,” Gibson said.

Northwestern University rejects a qualified nominee for “associate vice president of diversity and inclusion” because he belongs to the wrong race (white), sex (male), and sexual orientation (normal).

Ian Coley, a student on the Associate Student Government Diversity and Inclusion Committee, later said white heterosexual males are not qualified to hold the position of associate vice president of diversity and inclusion.

California targets the Boy Scouts for punitive taxation with its “Youth Equality Act.”

Paleo Retiree identifies “our state religion”:

A too-big-to-fail bank has just ordered me, a random ATM user, to “unite behind diversity.”

Stockholm burns; police issue parking tickets.

Imported black Muslims decapitate a British soldier on a London street in broad daylight.

French nationalist Marine Le Pen is stripped of immunity from prosecution for “racism” in a secret vote by a European parliamentary committee.

Jamie Malanowski (The New York Times) presents: the official history of the Civil War. (May contain traces of historical authenticity.)

Equivalence of experience was stretched to impute an equivalence of legitimacy. The idea that “now, we are all Americans” served to whitewash the actions of the rebels. The most egregious example of this was the naming of United States Army bases after Confederate generals. […]

But that was a time when the Army was segregated and our views about race more ignorant [my emphasis]. Now African-Americans make up about a fifth of the military. The idea that today we ask any of these soldiers to serve at a place named for a defender of a racist slavocracy is deplorable; the thought that today we ask any American soldier to serve at a base named for someone who killed United States Army troops is beyond absurd. […]

Changing the names of these bases would not mean that we can’t still respect the service of those Confederate leaders; nor would it mean that we are imposing our notions of morality [my emphasis] on people of a long-distant era.

I refer you to Union Army General Charles Francis Adams II (1913):

That it had its good and even its elevating side, so far at least as the African is concerned, I am not here to deny. On the contrary, I see and recognize those features of the institution far more clearly now than I should have said would have been possible in 1853. […]

The noticeable feature, however, so far as I individually am concerned, has been the entire change of view as respects certain of the fundamental propositions at the base of our whole American political and social edifice brought about by a more careful and intelligent ethnological study. I refer to the political equality of man. […] In this all-important respect I do not hesitate to say we theorists and abstractionists of the North, throughout that long anti-slavery discussion which ended with the 1861 clash of arms, were thoroughly wrong.

In utter disregard of fundamental, scientific facts, we theoretically believed that all men — no matter what might be the color of their skin, or the texture of their hair — were, if placed under exactly similar conditions, in essentials the same. In other words, we indulged in the curious and, as is now admitted, utterly erroneous theory that the African was, so to speak, an Anglo-Saxon, or, if you will, a Yankee “who had never had a chance,” — a fellow-man who was guilty, as we chose to express it, of a skin not colored like our own. In other words, though carved in ebony, he also was in the image of God.

Following out this theory, under the lead of men to whom scientific analysis and observation were anathema if opposed to accepted cardinal political theories as enunciated in the Declaration as read by them, the African was not only emancipated, but so far as the letter of the law, as expressed in an amended Constitution, would establish the fact, the quondam slave was in all respects placed on an equality, political, legal and moral, with those of the more advanced race.

I do not hesitate here, — as one who largely entertained the theoretical views I have expressed, — I do not hesitate here to say, as the result of sixty years of more careful study and scientific observation, the theories then entertained by us were not only fundamentally wrong, but they further involved a problem in the presence of which I confess to-day I stand appalled.

Lawyer and philosopher Ronald Lindsay, president of the Center for Inquiry and author of Future Bioethics: Overcoming Taboos, Myths, and Dogmas, makes a few good points about “privilege” in his opening remarks at the second annual Women In Secularism conference.

Let me emphasize at the outset that I think it’s a concept that has some validity and utility; it’s also a concept that can be misused, misused as a way to try to silence critics. […]

That said, I am concerned the concept of privilege may be misapplied in some instances. First, some people think it has dispositive explanatory power in all situations, so, if for example, in a particular situation there are fewer women than men in a given managerial position, and intentional discrimination is ruled out, well, then privilege must be at work. But that’s not true; there may be other explanations. […]

But it’s the second misapplication of the concept of privilege that troubles me most. I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” […]

This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism.

The offensively, almost surreally stupid Amanda Marcotte (joined by Rebecca Watson) does the two things she does best: bitch, and in so bitching, prove every one of her opponent’s points a thousand times over.

Instead of acting in his role as a leader — to welcome the participants and offer a quick introduction of the speakers — he used his time to issue a condescending, unnecessary lecture to the women present about their supposedly naughty behavior when dealing with those who oppose the existence of feminism. […]

Needless to say, preening about how men are “silenced” when asked to shut up and listen to women’s experiences before rendering judgment on the validity of them is offensive enough. Under the circumstances, where he is a speaker and the audience present is required to shut up and listen out of politeness, the arrogance of this complaint was particularly grotesque. We are to shut up and listen to him, but men are entitled at all points in time, it appears, to yap over any woman whose complaints about sexism they find beneath their attention.

In the words of Queen Victoria (1870):

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of “Women’s Rights,” with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to “unsex” themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.

Meanwhile, psychologists manage to detect the obvious superiority of the Victorian era and its people.

New research in the journal Intelligence suggests the Victorians were naturally cleverer than we are, and draws the startling conclusion that “the Victorian era was marked by an explosion of innovation and genius, per capita rates of which appear to have declined subsequently.”

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) points out that start-ups have dried up:

I wonder if the biggest problem isn’t cultural. Since 2008, this country hasn’t celebrated achievement or entrepreneurialism. Instead, we’ve heard talk about the evils of the “1%”, about the rapaciousness of capitalism, and the importance of spreading the wealth around. We’ve even heard that work in the public sector is somehow nobler than work in the private sector.

Google CEO Larry Page wants to set aside part of the world for experimentation.

I think as technologists we should have some safe places where we can try out new things and figure out the effect on society. What’s the effect on people, without having to deploy it to the whole world.

Ellis Washington (WorldNetDaily) links IRS persecution of the Tea Party to cultural Marxism.

Since the 1848 publication of Karl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto,” history has repeatedly demonstrated that the Lenin-Gramsci “Long March through the Institutions” is an established Marxist/Socialist tactic and proven philosophical strategy to indoctrinate a comprehensive socialist hegemony throughout society (years before the Dutschke moniker was coined) by systematically deconstructing bourgeoisie capitalist culture and society rooted in Judeo-Christian traditions and by co-opting, taking over and eventually controlling all major societal institutions — not from without via violence and revolution as in Marxist/Socialist revolutions of the past, but within via Fabian Socialism — steadily, quietly, imperceptibly and with Nazi-like efficiency over a long period of time.

Jeff Goldstein (Protein Wisdom) finally breaks from the ruling class over the IRS scandal. Robert Belvedere (TheCampOfTheSaints.org) says the cancer has metastasized, and the patient cannot be saved.

Jewish communist Rachel Maddow (MSNBC), still frothing from her intensely gratifying Two Minutes Hate of Jason Richwine, is kind enough to introduce an audience of millions to Richard Spencer’s unusually presentable brand of European ethno-nationalism.

Jewish communist Arthur Goldwag (The Washington Spectator) joins in with her horrified shrieking:

Perhaps the theme I have written about most is how the extreme right is infiltrating mainstream political discourse. As disastrous as last week was for Jason Richwine and the Heritage Foundation, it was a pretty good one for Richard Spencer.

Joe Biden answers the Jewish question:

“I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he explained, “… Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry.”

Biden also cited one of his favorite explanations for the success of gay marriage — “it wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was Will and Grace, it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” the measure.

In those developments, Biden explained, “the influence [of Jewish people] is immense. The influence is immense.”

The SFWA elects Steven Gould, author of Jumper, as its president. Theodore Beale receives 9 percent of the vote.

Jim Goad is a rape skeptic.

Obama reiterates: Assad must go.

Rod Dreher (The American Conservative) looks high and low for a real right wing:

All parties in American politics are devoted to Progression. It’s simply a matter of whether you are a “conservative” progressive, a progressive progressive, or a radical progressive.

It’s all relative, writes Paul Gottfried (TakiMag):

The “conservative movement” and the GOP operate from a false pretense that they are straining to dismantle our vast bureaucratic state. Both our national parties are social democratic clubs that accept and implement in varying degrees the PC teachings that flow from our educational and cultural institutions.

A survey of registered voters shows that 29 percent of Americans believe that “an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years.” Another 5 percent are “unsure.”

One of Ian Culbard’'s illustrations for The Shadow Out of Time

A writer out of time (image)


Robert Merry reviews John Gray’s book The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths.

“The overthrow of the ancien régime in France, the Tsars in Russia, the Shah of Iran, Saddam in Iraq and Mubarak in Egypt may have produced benefits for many people,” writes Gray, “but increased freedom was not among them. Mass killing, attacks on minorities, torture on a larger scale, another kind of tyranny, often more cruel than the one that was overthrown — these have been the results. To think of humans as freedom-loving, you must be ready to view nearly all of history as a mistake.”

Such thinking puts Gray severely at odds with the predominant sentiment of modern Western man — indeed, essentially with the foundation of Western thought since at least the French Encyclopedists of the mid-eighteenth century, who paved the way for the transformation of France between 1715 and 1789. These romantics — Diderot, Baron d’Holbach, Helvétius and Voltaire, among others — harbored ultimate confidence that reason would triumph over prejudice, that knowledge would prevail over ignorance, that “progress” would lift mankind to ever-higher levels of consciousness and purity. In short, they foresaw an ongoing transformation of human nature for the good.

The noted British historian J. B. Bury (1861–1927) captured the power of this intellectual development when he wrote, “This doctrine of the possibility of indefinitely moulding the characters of men by laws and institutions… laid a foundation on which the theory of the perfectibility of humanity could be raised. It marked, therefore, an important stage in the development of the doctrine of Progress.”

We must pause here over this doctrine of progress. It may be the most powerful idea ever conceived in Western thought — emphasizing Western thought because the idea has had little resonance in other cultures or civilizations. It is the thesis that mankind has advanced slowly but inexorably over the centuries from a state of cultural backwardness, blindness and folly to ever more elevated stages of enlightenment and civilization — and that this human progression will continue indefinitely into the future. […]

Gray rejects it utterly. In doing so, he rejects all of modern liberal humanism.

Economist Richard Ebeling (The Daily Bell) of the Foundation for Economic Education finds himself “thinking an unthinkable: no voting right for those living at the taxpayer’s expense.”

Our dilemma, today, is that, to use John Stuart Mill’s phrase, we have a political system in which many who have the right to vote use it “to put their hands into other people’s pockets for any purpose which they think fit to call a public one.”

Unless some way is found to escape from our current political situation, to use Frederic Bastiat’s words, in which the State has become the “great fiction” through which everyone tries to live at everyone else’s expense, we are facing a fiscal and general social crisis that may truly be destructive of society in the coming years.

Law professor Jonathan Turley (The Washington Post) witnesses the rise of a “fourth branch of government.”

For much of our nation’s history, the federal government was quite small. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies.

This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions.

Charles Blow (The New York Times) tracks the death of white America, the destruction of the family, the decline of faith, and other forms of moral-political progress in an idiotic but revealing op-ed:

This means that on the moral front, more liberal views — like support for same-sex marriage — are allowed to quickly spread [my emphasis] and have gone from being seen as radical to mainstream. […]

These new realities have changed the conversation about the role and size of government, about the line between individual liberty and the collective good, about the meaning of personal responsibility and societal responsibility.

They have also signaled that conservative arguments on many of these issues are losing their resonance nationally, and that the Republican pool of potential voters is shrinking while the Democratic pool expands.

So, to defend themselves, their ways of thinking (and, to their minds, their way of life), Republicans are pulling every lever to slow the change on the state level — gerrymandering, limiting voter access, passing anti-immigrant laws, cutting assistance to the poor.

Cultural “critic” (i.e., Marxist) James Wolcott pronounces the death of the “right-wing blogosphere” in Vanity Fair. Unfortunately, he’s looking in the wrong place.

For the Breitbartians, it isn’t about winning anymore. It’s about fouling up the works — poking a stick between the spokes. Sentient Republicans (those non-fanatics who can read election results and recognize demographic shifts) understand that a corner has been turned and they have to turn with it or be left behind as fossil remains. When Rush Limbaugh accepts reality and admits that gay marriage is “inevitable,” when the Republican Party’s own task force produces an autopsy report on the 2012 defeats that advises muffling the anti-gay, anti-immigrant, old-fart rhetoric, the “war” that Breitbart lip-smackingly wanted to wage has already been lost.

A Colorado bakery faces a charge of “discrimination” for not baking a cake for a homosexual wedding. Obama fancies a Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage a “victory for American democracy.”

Artist Mike Krahulik of the gamer webcomic Penny Arcade comes under ferocious attack from the usual social-justice suspects for “a series of increasingly transphobic tweets” (Wired), “blatantly anti-transgender comments” (Financial Post), and “some transphobic garbage” (Storify); specifically:

I don’t think it makes me a monster to think boys have a penis and girls have a vagina though. I guess I could be wrong. It happens.

GayGamer gets right to the point (after a couple quick “trigger warnings” for “rape and transphobia”):

His statements are his personal opinion — but that opinion has been formed, directly or indirectly, because of centuries of uncritical, unreasoned and unexamined opinions that suggest that our biology is the ultimate deciding factor in whether we are “men” or “women,” which is not only presumptuous and simplistic, but also unscientific and inaccurate!

Daniel Bergner publishes What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire.

We embraced science that soothed us, the science we wanted to hear.

The presumption that while male lust belongs to the animal realm, female sexuality tends naturally toward the civilized; the belief that in women’s brains the more advanced regions, the domains of forethought and self-control, are built by heredity to ably quiet the libido; the premise that emotional bonding is, for women, a potent and ancestrally prepared aphrodisiac; the idea that female eros makes women the preordained if imperfect guardians of monogamy — what nascent truths will come into view, floating forward if these faiths continue to be cut apart?

The volunteer thought police target Geoffrey Miller for “shaming” lazy fatties (redundant, I know).

His since-deleted tweet read: “Dear obese PhD applicants: If you don’t have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won’t have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth.”


Before the account was locked, his comments quickly drew the ire of the Twitter world, with NYU colleague Jay Rosen referencing the “fat-shaming tweet” as “mind boggling.”

Wired writer Steve Silberman compared the sentiments to eugenics: “More from @matingmind’s passion for eugenics. It sounded better in the original German.”

The EEOC pledges to fight a non-existent “wage gap.”

The enemies of Western civilization turn their slitted yellow eyes on Edith Jones:

A complaint filed today by several civil rights groups, including one funded entirely by the government of Mexico, alleges that federal Judge Edith Jones has violated her duty to be impartial and damaged the public’s confidence in the judiciary, in statements she made in a public lecture — including that blacks and Hispanics are more violent.

Judge Jones is, of course, obviously, indisputably right. So too is Michael Bloomberg in his comments on New York City’s “stop-and-frisk” policy:

“One newspaper and one news service, they just keep saying, ‘Oh, it’s a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group.’ That may be. But it’s not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the murders,” Bloomberg said.

“In that case, incidentally, I think, we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little,” the mayor said. “It’s exactly the reverse of what they’re saying. I don’t know where they went to school, but they certainly didn’t take a math course, or a logic course.”

The EEOC sues BMW for not hiring criminals (because so many blacks are criminals).

Cathedral forces humiliate and destroy Paula Deen after she admits to having used the word “nigger” — used it appropriately, as a matter of fact — some thirty years ago:

Deen recalled the time she worked as a bank teller in southwest Georgia in the 1980s and was held at gunpoint by a robber. The gunman was a black man, Deen told the attorney, and she thought she used the slur when talking about him after the holdup. “Probably in telling my husband,” she said.

23-year-old 911 operator April Sims loses her job and is publicly disgraced after “a Facebook friend forwarded screenshots of her offensive posts to local media.”

“Black people are outrageous!” she wrote on one post. “They are more like animals, they never know how to act, just loud [expletive]. Always causing problems. I can count on one hand the black people I know who don’t have [expletive] for brains.”

Here are some things black people said on Twitter circa New Year’s Eve, 2013:

  • @JazmyneJ_: “I swear black people dont know how to act”
  • @immal0ner: “Black people dont know how to act, shooting guns an shit”
  • @KtrinaG: “@SforSuccess_ lol , really cause y’all black people dont know how to act .”
  • @barbie4eva10: “Damnq , CARRY TOWN CANCELLED ! Because of the past events ! Lord ! Black people dont know HOW TO FUCKIN ACT”
  • @RipTinyy: “Ion [I don’t] go out on NYE . Black people in Lauderdale dont know how to act . I know because 99% of them is my family .”
  • @Desire_Nae: “A lot of black people just dont know how to act when they go places … Somebody always gotta fight or shoot or stab someone smh [shaking my head]” (2 retweets)
  • @yonnacarter12: “Black people dont know how to act when it comed to events” (6 retweets, 2 favorites)
  • @_aRawww: “why all these black folks having hotel kbs, yall know yall dont know how to act.” (7 retweets, 1 favorite)
  • @LickMy_Sexyness: “Cant Never Go No Where ’ Black People Dont Know How To Fucking Act 😫👐 ❗️❗️” (8 retweets, 2 favorites)
  • @jarelld92: “I’m hanging with the white folks tonight black ppl dont know how to act on nights like tonight” (2 favorites)

Journalist and writer David Barnett (The Guardian) tries to push H.P. Lovecraft down the memory hole.

The American writer, who died in 1937, is also widely considered today to have had unacceptable racist views. And yet, despite his prejudices and stylistic shortcomings, his work remains insanely popular. […]

So why do we continue to fete Lovecraft instead of burying him quietly away?

Nick Land remarks: “That ‘we’ is more terrifying that anything H.P. Lovecraft ever put to paper.” Even the giant penguins?

Professionally swarthy N.K. Jemisin sounds the alarm over Theodore Beale’s candidacy for president of the SFWA in her paranoid, narcissistic, white-hating Guest of Honour speech at a fan convention in Melbourne.

There were two candidates — one of whom was a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole. In this election he lost by a landslide… but he still earned ten percent of the vote.

Beale replies:

Unlike the white males she excoriates, there is no evidence to be found anywhere on the planet that a society of NK Jemisins is capable of building an advanced civilization, or even successfully maintaining one without significant external support from those white males. […]

Being an educated, but ignorant half-savage, with little more understanding of what it took to build a new literature by “a bunch of beardy old middle-class middle-American guys” than an illiterate Igbotu tribesman has of how to build a jet engine, Jemisin clearly does not understand that her dishonest call for “reconciliation” and even more diversity within SF/F is tantamount to a call for its decline into irrelevance.

This does not go over well. Heads can fairly be said to have exploded. The SFWA removes Beale from its Twitter aggregator and its forum. “Lots of people,” president-elect Steven Gould notes, “calling for the expulsion of this guy. With reason.” The phrase “tarred by association” is discovered to be racist. No one tries to engage with Beale’s ideas about history, anthropology, or governance.

Here I must digress into the words of Lovecraft himself (1919).

The genius of a few individuals is never an index of collective racial capacity. In spite of all the Booker Washingtons & Dunbars we can see that the negro as a whole has never made any progress or founded any culture. We cannot judge a man sociologically by his own individual qualities; we have the future to think of. Two persons of different races, though equal mentally & physically, may have a vitally different sociological value, because one will certainly produce an incalculably better type of descendants than the other. We must see that the best retain social & political supremacy, in order that our best traditions may be preserved. Therefore, to me, racial prejudice is not irrational or unexplainable; nor in any way unjustifiable. It has awkward phases, but its benefits immeasurably outweigh its disadvantages.

Or, if you prefer, these, from The Call of Cthulhu (1926):

Then, whispered Castro, those first men formed the cult around tall idols which the Great Ones shewed them; idols brought in dim eras from dark stars. That cult would never die till the stars came right again, and the secret priests would take great Cthulhu from His tomb to revive His subjects and resume His rule of earth. The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom. Meanwhile the cult, by appropriate rites, must keep alive the memory of those ancient ways and shadow forth the prophecy of their return.

In Britain, seven Muslims receive hilariously light sentences for raping, torturing and trafficking, with “extreme depravity,” white girls as young as 11. Britain kinda, sorta notices how insane and evil anti-racism is.

The high-profile trial was the latest in a rapidly growing list of grooming cases that are forcing politically correct Britons to confront the previously taboo subject of endemic sexual abuse of children by predatory Muslim paedophile gangs.

The 18-week trial drew unwelcome attention to the sordid reality that police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media have for decades downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated against British children because they were afraid of being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism.


The trial — details of which were so disturbing that jury members were excused from ever having to sit on a jury again — exposed years of failings by Thames Valley police and Oxford social services. The court heard that the girls were abused between 2004 and 2012 and that police were told about the crimes as early as 2006, that they were contacted at least six times by victims, but failed to act.


Despite irrefutable evidence that the girls were being sexually abused, no one — according to a report published by the House of Commons on June 5 — acted to draw all the facts together, apparently due to fears by police and social workers that they would be accused of racism against Muslims.

Towson University professor Ben Warner meets Matthew Heimbach, a real live white nationalist! Why, he seems almost… human.

If I was once ashamed of my excitement at having him in class, that shame didn’t keep me from talking about him. Though it made me uncomfortable, he’d become the most interesting part of my teaching. I was primed for something to boil over, but I also found myself liking him. He arrived to class on time; he was prepared; he was respectful. He had a way of calling me professor in the middle of sentences that appealed to my ego. “You know, Professor, what Kafka might be saying here…”

The Golden Dawn takes out Clément Méric.

A security guard who was present… has pointed the finger at the four anti-fascist militants, one of them in particular. According his testimony, the young man, very agitated, had boxing gloves in his bag and egged on the others to fight the skinheads who, according to the guard, sought rather to avoid a confrontation and leave quietly.

The witness added that Clément Méric had said about the skinheads: “These are people who should not even be alive.”

Edward Snowden leaks NSA secrets. Moldbug does not care — oh, and by the way, the ACLU was a communist front, so take your “freedom” and the rest of your stale mythology and shove it.

Vladimir Putin is much subtler than Joe Biden:

“I thought about something just now: The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80–85 percent Jewish,” Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.


According to the official transcription of Putin’s speech at the museum, he went on to say that the politicians on the predominantly Jewish Soviet government “were guided by false ideological considerations and supported the arrest and repression of Jews, Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims and members of other faiths. They grouped everyone into the same category.

“Thankfully, those ideological goggles and faulty ideological perceptions collapsed. And today, we are essentially returning these books to the Jewish community with a happy smile.”

In Indiana, four Democrats are sentenced for ballot fraud in the 2008 Obama-Clinton primary. In Miami, a Democratic congressman’s chief of staff is “implicated in an elaborate and massive voter fraud scheme that reportedly occurred during the 2012 primary election.” He will later serve 90 days in jail.

The U.S. Supreme Court bars Arizona from checking to see if its voters are actually U.S. citizens.

The ruling was the second in two terms to reject Arizona laws that the state’s officials justified as responses to illegal immigration. In both cases, the court insisted that the federal government has the dominant role when it comes to national issues like controlling the borders and how federal elections are conducted.

In this case, the “dominant role” is to do absolutely nothing.

USG begins arming Syrian rebels. Syrian jihadists behead a Catholic priest. The two-year Syrian civil war death toll creeps closer to 100,000. As a bonus, violence bleeds into neighboring Lebanon.

Sectarian violence erupts in Egypt.

The beheading of witches continues in Jared Diamond’s Papua New Guinea.

Wesley Morganston talks strategy, and settles on reactionary media:

Passivism is no longer a viable strategy; attempting merely to get the word out that Universalism is harmful and philosophically bankrupt may have been defensible thirty years ago, but the situation now is dire. The consensus is that something must be done; but what?


Make dissent respectable. Many already disagree; let them voice it. Handle notes that “the pre-reactionary numbers are swelling beyond almost anyone’s awareness.”

Michael Anissimov lists twelve points of neoreaction, and conceives of it as a return to natural order. Occam’s Razor brings us the Laws of the Cathedral. Nick Steves talks God. Foseti sees the Cathedral going viral. Francis St. Pol designs an Antiversity. Anomaly UK wants to start a lot of fun clubs. Matt Forney disposes of Lindy West. Marcus Otte sketches late modernity. James Donald gears up for Civil War, Round Two.

An elite neoreactionary secret elder council convenes in the heart of darkness.

The Reaction® has been fully planned. Implementation has already begun.

Please stay tuned to the usual channels for the signal when to carry out your encrypted, prearranged and detailed instructions.

Remember, The Reaction® is counting on YOU!!

The crow flies at midnight. The ferret is wriggly. Over and out.

Wounded warriors

Your masters despise you (image)


Matthew Feeney (Reason) enumerates the benefits of monarchy.

In the last hundred years many European nations have experienced fascism, communism, and military dictatorships. However, countries with constitutional monarchies have managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics in part because monarchies provide a check on the wills of populist politicians. European monarchies — such as the Danish, Belgian, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, and British — have ruled over countries that are among the most stable, prosperous, and free in the world.

Damien Ma (The Atlantic) can’t understand why the Chinese refuse to accept the one true faith.

A new study shows that the country’s youth have an increasingly lukewarm attitude about democratic political systems.


Many will likely dismiss these findings as simply a study meant to provide some intellectual heft for perpetuating the current status quo. Or perhaps the official narrative and media are simply driving these attitudes.

Unlike in the free world, where there are no official narratives or official media and no one ever uses studies to provide intellectual heft for perpetuating the status quo. Because votes for idiots! Because democracy.

Meanwhile, an independent report shows a “deep liberal bias” towards “immigration” (that is, Third World colonization) in the BBC, Britain’s official media.

Germany is forced to concede certain drawbacks to “mass immigration.”

Germany faces a wave of crime and disorder because of large-scale immigration from Romania and Bulgaria, according to a leaked government document.

In what could serve as a warning to Britain, the report describes overcrowded slum conditions, public health threats and disruption on the streets as a result of the influx from the two countries.

Detroit files for bankruptcy.

The tunnel from Windsor, Ontario, to Detroit, Michigan, is now a border between the First World and the Third World — or, if you prefer, the developed world and the post-developed world. To any American time-transported from the mid 20th century, the city’s implosion would be literally incredible.

Film critic Andrew O’Hehir (Salon) thinks he knows the real reason Detroit failed:

Is it pure coincidence that these two landmark cities [Detroit and New Orleans], known around the world as fountainheads of the most vibrant and creative aspects of American culture, have become our two direst examples of urban failure and collapse? If so, it’s an awfully strange one. I’m tempted to propose a conspiracy theory: As centers of African-American cultural and political power and engines of a worldwide multiracial pop culture that was egalitarian, hedonistic and anti-authoritarian, these cities posed a psychic threat to the most reactionary and racist strains in American life. […] As payback for the worldwide revolution symbolized by hot jazz, Smokey Robinson dancin’ to keep from cryin’ and Eminem trading verses with Rihanna, New Orleans and Detroit had to be punished. Specifically, they had to be isolated, impoverished and almost literally destroyed, so they could be held up as examples of what happens when black people are allowed to govern themselves [my emphasis].

National Review accidentally prints a good idea: bring back colonialism.

Why not turn abandoned Detroit into New Detroit, a business-friendly charter city where taxes are low and regulation light? Governance could be guaranteed by some outside entity.

“Independent” Zimbabwe can’t afford to run its own rigged elections.

Mercifully it was peaceful. Memories of the 2008 election — burnt and lacerated bodies, weeping girls and women who had been raped, swollen, bleeding feet and dead bodies — were fresh in the minds of many.

Thomas Sowell identifies the central delusion of the left:

Whole books could be filled with the unequal behavior or performances of people, or the unequal geographic settings in which whole races, nations, and civilizations have developed. Yet the preconceptions of the political Left march on undaunted, loudly proclaiming sinister reasons why outcomes are not equal within nations or between nations.

Biologist Lewis Spurgin (Aeon) talks kin selection:

So why hadn’t Haldane — a brilliant and inventive biologist­ — taken the idea of kin selection to its natural conclusion? In a startlingly honest interview for the Web of Stories website in 1997, the eminent evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith, a former student of Haldane’s, said that this failure was partly political:

I have to put it down, to some extent, to political and ideological commitment… We were, I think, very reluctant, as Marxists would be, to admit that anything genetic might influence human behaviour. And I think that we didn’t say consciously to ourselves that this would be un-Marxist so we won’t do it, that’s not the way that the mind works; but it was a path that our minds were not, so to speak, prepared to go down, in quite an unconscious sense, whereas Bill [Hamilton] was very prepared to go down it… to make big breaks in science, which Hamilton did, it’s not enough to have the technical understanding of some technical point, it’s got to fit in with your world view that you should pursue this road.

Biologist John Bohannon (Wired) talks genetic intelligence:

This is an idea that makes us incredibly uncomfortable. “People don’t like to talk about IQ, because it undermines their notion of equality,” Detterman says. “We think every person is equal to every other, and we like to take credit for our own accomplishments. You are where you are because you worked hard.” The very idea of the American dream is undermined by the notion that some people might be born more likely to succeed. Even if we accept that intelligence is heritable, any effort to improve or even understand the inheritance process strikes us as distasteful, even ghoulish, suggesting the rise of designer superbabies. And given the fallout that sometimes results when academics talk about intelligence as a quantifiable concept — such as the case of Harvard president Lawrence Summers, who in 2006 resigned after suggesting that science is male-dominated due not to discrimination but to a shortage of high-IQ women — it’s no surprise that IQ research is not a popular subject these days at Western universities.

But in his lab at BGI [China’s top biotech institute], 21-year-old Zhao has no such squeamishness.

Meanwhile, in still-dreaming America, dry asparagus provokes yet another “debate” on “racial discrimination.”

Violent mobs sweep through southern California.

Speeding through a stop sign with his headlights off, Abdirahman Abdi Ali kills 24-year-old Jessica Hanson.

Police said Abdirahman Ali is the older brother of Ahmed Shire Ali, who is serving an 18-year prison sentence for pleading guilty to his role in the January 2010 slayings of three people at Seward Market & Halal Meats on East Franklin Avenue in Minneapolis.

Yes, that is supposed to read Minneapolis. Not Mogadishu.

The Economist fantasizes that First World cities “have become vastly safer” in recent years; furthermore, since “most of what remains of the crime problem is really a recidivism issue,” meaning repeat offenders, we should scrap “harsh punishments, and in particular long mandatory sentences,” to get them back on the street as quickly as possible. Then we can retrain police to “focus on new crimes,” like “tax evasion.” You see, in this “era of austerity,” the middle class might be refusing to pay its fair share of criminal “rehabilitation.” Paging Sam Francis

George Zimmerman is finally cleared of all charges. Violence erupts among “mostly peaceful protesters.” Gary Younge (The Guardian) calls it “open season on black boys.”

Dim-witted “social justice” grad student Jessie-Lane Metz (The Toast), in true “anti-racist” fashion, screams her hatred of white collaborators in one of the stupidest, ugliest articles of the year:

I remember my rage in my first year of my BSW studies, reading Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” in which she casually appropriated the collective pain of Black [sic] people, and rolled out excruciating examples of our experiences in an itemized list. Her article, largely in bullet-point form, highlights a number of ways in which Black people are treated differently from white [sic] people on a daily basis. The beneficiaries of this article are largely white. Peggy herself benefitted from becoming a central voice in anti-racist activism, and still charges $10 for a copy of her article, after doing nothing more than stealing our pain, putting it in her words, and becoming an expert in a struggle that is not her own.

Katy Waldman (Slate), apparently white, understands all of this — and agrees.

If I understand Metz correctly, white people can help by ceding the floor to those whose testimonies about racism deserve more attention than theirs. These stories deserve more attention both as a kind of recompense for what the victims of racism have suffered and because they are more illuminating. I accept both premises: Black voices have earned — and continue to earn — the right to dominate our dialogue about racism, and what they have to say is more valuable than what white voices have to say.

Because equality!

Bob Parks (Black & Right) reprints the classic American Renaissance essay ‘A White Teacher Speaks Out.’

Until recently I taught at a predominantly black high school in a southeastern state. I took the job because I wasn’t knowledgeable about race at the time, and black schools aren’t picky. The school offered me a job and suddenly I was in darkest Africa. Except, I wasn’t in Africa; I was in America.

Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative, writes a straightforward, factual piece on the realities of race and crime in America, for which he will be purged.

SFWA president Steven Gould bans Theodore Beale from the SFWA forum. Sarah Hoyt anticipates the organization’s death by political correctness.

Sean McElwee (AlterNet) makes the progressive case for censoring “hate speech.”

The negative impacts of hate speech do not lie in the responses of third-party observers, as hate speech aims at two goals. First, it is an attempt to tell bigots that they are not alone. […]

Jeffrey Rosen argues that norms of civility should be open to discussion, but, in today’s reality, this issue has already been decided; impugning someone because of their race, gender or orientation is not acceptable in a civil society. Banning hate speech is not a mechanism to further this debate because the debate is over.

Fred Reed (LewRockwell.com) takes on sexual integration.

Resegregation by sex, which would be both cheap and easy, is probably vital to the future of the United States. The bright little boys now being pushed under become, especially after the male IQ spurt in adolescence, the phenomenally intelligent young men who found Intel, Google, Dell Computer, Microsoft and, perhaps less crucially, Facebook.

I do not mean to disparage the contributions of Victims’ Studies to technological advance and industrial excellence, and indeed their record cannot be questioned, but men too have contributed around the edges, and perhaps should not be stifled by education both unsuited and hostile to them.

Feminist “libertarian” sluts react predictably.

Psychologist Helen Smith gives eight reasons why “straight men don’t want to get married.” Number eight:

Single life is better than ever. While the value of marriage to men has declined, the quality of single life has improved. Single men were once looked on with suspicion, passed over for promotion for important jobs, which usually valued “stable family men,” and often subjected to social opprobrium. It was hard to have a love life that wasn’t aimed at marriage, and premarital sex was risky and frowned upon. Now, no one looks askance at the single lifestyle, dating is easy, and employers probably prefer employees with no conflicting family responsibilities. Plus, video games, cable TV, and the Internet provide entertainment that didn’t used to be available. Is this good for society? Probably not, as falling birth rates and increasing single-motherhood demonstrate. But people respond to incentives. If you want more men to marry, it needs to be a more attractive proposition.

A crack team of social “scientists” discovers that men prefer cohabitation to commitment. New York magazine tries to discredit game with a “roundtable of pickup artists” including three women. The BBC reports that Japanese men increasingly refuse to leave their rooms.

Gawker accidentally “misgenders” a woman who has decided that she is not a woman, and demands that everyone refer to her by the “correct” pronoun “ou.”

Feminists threaten Texas legislators and their families with rape, and chant “Hail Satan” to drown out ‘Amazing Grace.’ The Church of Satan disavows them.

Girls can’t get enough of the Boston bombers. (Can women’s suffrage please be over?)

Park Forest police kill a 95-year-old man.

When John Wrana was a young man, fit and strong and fighting in World War II with the U.S. Army Air Corps, did he ever think he’d end this way?

Hey, thanks for helping Stalin kill all those Germans!

The New York Post explains why the 9/11 Memorial Museum didn’t want that iconic image of “firefighters raising the stars and stripes in the rubble of Ground Zero.”

Michael Shulan, the museum’s creative director, was among staffers who considered the Tom Franklin photograph too kitschy and “rah-rah America.” […]

“I really believe that the way America will look best, the way we can really do best, is to not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently,” Shulan said.

Megyn Kelly enjoys a photo-op with America’s former finest. Supports our troops! Whatever that means.

The Egyptian military overthrows President Morsi’s post-Arab Spring government. Egypt explodes into political (and, incidentally, sexual and religious) violence. In America, birthplace of revolutionary violence, top Democrats and Republicans agree: “democracy is about more than elections.”

Syria lies in pieces. Rebels, backed by USG, welcome the help of al-Qaeda — along with hundreds of radicalized Western Muslims. As a bonus, neighboring Jordan explodes into tribal violence.

Journalism professor Judy Bachrach (World Affairs) characterizes democracy as an “uneasy export.” Adam Garfinkle (The American Interest) interprets U.S. foreign policy as armed evangelism:

American foreign policy is, as James Kurth has brilliantly and incisively written, a product of “the Protestant Deformation,” a declension of a religious worldview, complete with logical train and eschatological pretensions, but rendered systematically into secular language that masks its real source. […]

We Americans believe in global democracy promotion, including in Egypt, ultimately for religious reasons tied to our belief in progress, which is itself a key premise of the aforementioned Protestant Deformation.

Jonathan Martin (The Wall Street Journal) reviews journalist Robert Kaiser’s Act of Congress.

Congress is dominated by intellectual lightweights who are chiefly consumed by electioneering and largely irrelevant in a body where a handful of members and many more staff do the actual work of legislating. And the business of the institution barely gets done because of a pernicious convergence of big money and consuming partisanship.

Victor Davis Hanson (PJ Media) exposes lies of the ruling class, but warns us not to start lying too, or we might destroy the system the ruling class uses to control us! Oh no! We wouldn’t want that.

The majority has to tell the truth — to the IRS, to the police, to the DA, to the census — if a consensual society is to work. You readers tell the truth so that the society can survive an Eric Holder or Mike Barnicle. Average people must speak honestly or our elites’ lies will overwhelm, even destroy us. If 100 million tell the IRS lies during audits or take the 5th Amendment, our voluntary tax system collapses. We can take only so many Lois Lerners.


We must try to tell the truth, not to doctor films, edit tapes, erase talking points, or lie before Congress, fabricate heroic war records, or invent false sources. Again, why? Because we seek to do the right thing with the full resignation that in the here and now we will often still lose and will lose often and gladly telling the truth.

The head of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences resigns “following reports that she embellished her resume” and generally lied and was corrupt all the time. Bruce Charlton affirms that “in modern intellectual life, honesty is punished and dishonesty is rewarded.” Gavin McInnes (TakiMag) regrets he ever went to college.

Andrew McAfee (Harvard Business Review) sums up the sorry state of the universities from the student side:

I don’t know exactly when, why, or how it happened, but important things are breaking down in the US higher education system.

Child-slaughtering Islamic militants in Nigeria manage to get one thing right:

Authorities blamed the violence on Boko Haram, a radical group whose name means “Western education is sacrilege.”

As civilization circles the drain, economist Robert Gordon is fiddling with mathematical models when he should be reading Lothrop Stoddard and Oswald Spengler.

He believes we can no longer expect to double our standard of living in one generation; it will now take at least two. The common expectations that your children will attend college even if you haven’t, in other words, or will have twice as rich a life, in this view no longer look realistic. Some of these hopes are already outdated: The generation of Americans now in their twenties is the first to not be significantly better educated than their parents. If Gordon is right, then for all but the wealthiest one percent of Americans, the rate of improvement in the standard of living — year over year, and generation after generation­ — will be no faster than it was during the dark ages.

“Breathe deep, the Spenglerian doom,” Ed Driscoll (PJ Media) advises.

Are we experiencing the Decline of the West as Spengler predicted? As in Spenger’s era, our leftwing elites are certainly doing their damndest to advance the cause.

Overwhelmed with evidence, Conrad Black (National Post) still doesn’t get it, even in hindsight.

Of course, it is certainly tempting to imagine that some secular and irreversible decline is occurring in the West when considering the dismal spectacle of American lassitude and inertia, the floundering of the European concept, and the debt-ridden, delusional posturing of what were formerly and for over 400 years described as the Great Powers.


Other signs of civilizational decline — for those seeking them — can be found in the endless descent of the film industry into ever more vapid orgies of violence and wantonness, and the unutterable drivel that clogs most of the hundreds of television channels. Meanwhile, the political commentariat, especially in the United States and Great Britain, is thickly populated with imbeciles screaming epithets and shibboleths at each other. […]

All of this having been said, I still do not believe that the world is in “decline.”

Aaron Clarey, far from enjoying the decline, wants to avenge the United States:

Three decades of socialist brainwashing in the public schools, media, and government has resulted in an ignorant, entitled, and lazy electorate that cumulatively has rejected America, freedom, individualism and liberty, and instead replaced it with socialism, the lack of responsibility, commune, lies about the real world, and a vile code of political correctness.

The U.N. Population Division revises its projections:

The new statistics, based on in-depth survey data from sub-Saharan Africa, tell the story of a world poised to change drastically over the next several decades. Most rich countries will shrink and age (with a couple of important exceptions), poorer countries will expand rapidly and, maybe most significant of all, Africa will see a population explosion nearly unprecedented in human history.

Michael Anissimov talks oaks and sandboxes. Scharlach profiles Cathedral clerics. Anomaly UK maps the Modern Structure. Michael Anissimov calls for more theory; Nick Land, for more realism. Theden publishes its first articles, on generational segregation and the patron saint of Skittles. Malcolm Pollack criticizes Western culture. Marcus Otte explores the paradox of progress. Science fiction writer John C. Wright wants a real hero for a change.

Free Northerner presents the archetypal modern woman:

She could have had his love the whole time, but “even if [she] could, [she] wouldn’t in a million years go back and shake [her] 23-year-old self and tell her that she’d already met her future fiancé.” She just loves her memories of empty fucks with pornstars and her relationship with Steve far too much to give them up for boring old love with beta boy.

Fred Reed lays out the logic of progress.

As it turned out, there were minor downsides to these sensible policies, but nothing serious. Our children are unattended drug-ridden mall rats, often divorce wreckage, our daughters sexually used at thirteen and growing up hating men, our sons drugged by their teachers and shaped into unhappy transgendered puzzloids. Men avoid marriage because of vindictive feminist courts, the young avoid marriage because of assured divorce. The schools and universities have been enstupidated to hide the failures of particular groups and genders, merit has been superseded by group identity, and here come the Chinese.

But it makes sense.

Traditional Right opens its doors.

Syrian rebel fighter

Our Syrian friends (image)


John Derbyshire (TakiMag) sees democracy in decline in the United States.

The drift of our own political culture seems to be confirming the Founders’ intuition that representative government can only work in a population possessed of some minimum level of virtue — thrift, restraint, industriousness, stoicism in the face of misfortune, willingness to defer gratification, and concern for the common good.

Is there still that much virtue in the United States? Or has our virtue leaked away through our gadgets, our infinity of pleasures, and our culture of preening “identity”? I suppose we shall find out.

Randall Parker (ParaPundit) believes that progress is inevitable:

So there’s really nothing that can be done about the decline of the Republican Party. As virtue and ability decline in the electorate so does the republic.

The main role of the Republican Party should be to slow the rate at which new forms of parasitism become enacted into law and regulation. Really, slow the rate. The poor, less skilled, less educated, less responsible, more impulsive, financially extravagant, less prudent are on the rise. They will demand, with increasing fractions of the vote, to get more from the prudent, skilled, hardest working, and biggest savers will be made to pay for them.

Aaron Clarey makes The Washington Times again.

In the event that our country’s decline continues without pause, Clarey opines that there will be “(h)igher prices, lower standards of living, lower supply of goods. You will also see a more tyrannical government, voted in by the dolts that constitute the American electorate to ‘solve the problem.’

“However, ‘more government’ won’t solve the problem and the decline will continue until there is a ‘come to Jesus meeting’ for the people and the economy as it and society collapses.”

Fox News discovers a 29-year-old Californian surfer living on welfare.

So, it was off to the gourmet section of the grocery store, as Greenslate purchased sushi and lobster with his EBT card. “All paid for by our wonderful tax dollars,” he said, telling Roberts that’s what he typically buys.

“This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” Greenslate said. “It’s free food; it’s awesome.”

Victor Davis Hanson (PJ Media) sees democracy in crisis all over the world.

Democracy’s culture worldwide is in crisis. It cannot pay its bills. It chafes at constitutional protections of individual rights and expression. It seems to encourage rather than to mitigate racial and class tensions. It offers more entitlements to a growing aging cohort and less opportunity for a shrinking younger population to pay for them. It appears unable to offer non-democratic societies moral and ethical models.

Ed West (Express) sees “no hope of democracy in the Middle East.”

Back in February 2011 David Cameron told the Kuwaiti parliament it was “prejudice” to say that democracy would not work in the Arab world. His statement was an example of the enfeebled western mindset, where even considering a possible thesis that could smack of “prejudice” must be discounted before the evidence is assessed, so that we approach a problem blinkered from any unpleasant reality.

In Egypt, Muslim violence against Christians intensifies. This really is going well, isn’t it?

As the Egyptian military consolidates control by murdering pro-Muslim Brotherhood protesters and declaring a state of emergency, we may be witnessing the most dangerous potential for Arab radicalization since the two Palestinian intifadas.

Reuel Marc Gerecht (The Weekly Standard) calls it a “descent into chaos.”

One thing is certain after the coup: Secular liberals will want to be protected from vengeful Islamists. And for that they will need the army. The ballot box will not do.

The “Egyptian-American feminist writer” Mona Eltahawy (The New York Times) thinks democracy still has a chance.

I’m writing this in Cairo where along with 13 other provinces we’re under curfew and a nationwide state of emergency has been announced just one day after a day drenched in blood — the bloodiest since our revolution — a day that included at least 20 churches getting torched.

John Kerry splits the difference — between democracy and military dictatorship.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday that the Egyptian army, which deposed President Mohammed Morsi, had intervened at the request of millions to protect democracy and had restored it, AFP reported.


“The military was asked to intervene by millions and millions of people, all of whom were afraid of descendance into chaos, into violence,” Kerry was quoted as having told Geo.

“And the military did not take over, to the best of our judgment — so far. To run the country, there’s a civilian government. In effect, they were restoring democracy,” he added.

The interviewer questioned him over allegations that Egyptian troops have shot dead people in the streets.

“Oh, no. That’s not restoring democracy, and we’re very, very concerned… I’ve been in touch with all of the players there. And we have made it clear that that is absolutely unacceptable, it cannot happen,” Kerry said, according to AFP.

“Free” and “independent” Zimbabwe re-elects Robert Mugabe.

There have been no significant protests against the result as Mugabe retains an iron grip. Police trucks with mounted water cannon watch over “freedom square,” the name given to an open field in downtown Harare.

Stephen Glover (Daily Mail) wants the British government to apologize “for inflicting Robert Mugabe on them in the first place, and then standing aside as he pillaged his country, murdered his enemies and ruined the economy.”

When the Foreign Office handed power to him after the 1980 Lancaster House Agreement, its mandarins muttered that Mugabe was probably a decent chap.

Well, at least they’re being recolonized — by the Chinese, of course.

22-year-old Australian baseball player Christopher Lane is jogging in Duncan, Oklahoma when a couple of bloodthirsty, white-hating Vibrant Diversities (Beale’s “half-savages”) decide to shoot and kill him out of boredom in yet another “random” black-on-white murder. Glenn Beck wants to know where the outrage is; Ruben Navarrette (CNN) wants to have that conversation about race he’s heard so much about.

And yet, when we have horrific crimes with white victims where the alleged perpetrators are African-American or Latino, we’re told that we can’t talk about race.

This isn’t true when the roles are reversed. If the victims are African-American or Latino, and the alleged perpetrator is white, we talk about race until our throats go dry.

John McWhorter (Time) observes that many black people are just plain violent and cannot be reasoned with.

So, it’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them.


Granted, it seems a lot easier to do something about the Zimmermans than the black thugs. Protest profiling and police departments institute new programs. But black thugs aren’t moved by protests, so it can seem like we’re just stuck with them.

Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) wonders if perhaps the whole “anti-racist,” cultural-Marxist, “white people are responsible for everything bad in human history” thing has gotten a little out of hand.

I’m reading all of these stories that talk about, basically, you’re putting a white hood over the governor of North Carolina, putting a white hood over the entire Texas legislature — most Americans would think it’s not racist to ask somebody to just have a picture I.D. when they show up at the voting booth. But you read the New York Times and you read these other media outlets that again make politicians in North Carolina and Texas sound racist for just saying hey, you’re going to need a picture I.D. to prove you are who you are.

John Hawkins (Townhall) lays out the rules of “racism.”

We’ve set up a system where the world’s most easily offended people get to decide what’s offensive and what’s not and coincidentally, crying “racism” often helps them fund raise or hurts their political opponents.

Chris Matthews (MSNBC) helpfully explains that any criticism of any non-white politician is “racist.” He’s quite serious.

Richard Dawkins gets in trouble for citing hate facts.

“All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though,” he wrote.


From issuing messages dubbing him a “an old white racist” to claiming the atheist leader is unfairly targeting the Muslim faith, many excoriated Dawkins.

The SFWA expels Theodore Beale. They will not say why. (Theden spots a crocodile.)

“The battle-lines have been drawn,” crows N.K. Jemisin in a most revealing screed.

The “good” old days are gone. The world has changed, and professionalism is now incompatible with bigotry; there can be no peaceful coexistence between these two concepts. Where a conflict occurs, SFWA cannot remain neutral, because there is no neutrality when bigotry is the status quo. I repeat: there is no neutrality when bigotry is the status quo. Put simply, SFWA must now take action against bigots in order to prove itself worthy of being called a professional organization.

Jason Richwine (Politico) tries to reason with witch-hunters.

What causes so many in the media to react emotionally when it comes to IQ? Snyderman and Rothman believe it is a naturally uncomfortable topic in modern liberal democracies. The possibility of intractable differences among people does not fit easily into the worldview of journalists and other members of the intellectual class who have an aversion to inequality. The unfortunate — but all too human — reaction is to avoid seriously grappling with inconvenient truths. And I suspect the people who lash out in anger are the ones who are most internally conflicted.

The Social Pathologist sees in this an “explicit, but confused, attack on The Cathedral.”

Matthew Yglesias (Slate) almost accidentally learns something about women:

You can imagine a handful of attractive, charming men who go out with a lot of women who them [sic] dump them swiftly when it becomes apparent that they refuse to pay for dates.

Feminists strip for money.

P.Z. Myers accuses Michael Shermer (Skeptic) of rape.

“Gender studies” professor Hugo Schwyzer tries to kill himself. Sadly, he fails.

The National Association of Scholars does its homework on “common reading” assignments.

NAS President Peter Wood believes the book is an indication of the “soft manipulation” that often goes on at the modern university. Instead of espousing classical literature, schools often turn studies into an opportunity for acculturation. The widespread ideology amongst America’s colleges strives to re-create students according to its own understanding of race, gender, and class theory.

Criminologist Mike Adams (Clash Daily) enumerates embarrassments to “higher education” in North Carolina.

At UNC Chapel Hill, there is a feminist professor who believes that women can lead happy lives without men. That’s nothing new. But what’s different is that she thinks women can form lifelong domestic partnerships with dogs and that those relationships will actually be fulfilling enough to replace marital relationships with men.

Ross Douthat (The New York Times) catches Steven Pinker in a blatant act of “scientism.”

This is an impressively swift march from allowing, grudgingly, that scientific discoveries do not “dictate” values to asserting that they “militate” very strongly in favor of… why, of Steven Pinker’s very own moral worldview! You see, because we do not try witches, we must be utilitarians! Because we know the universe has no purpose, we must imbue it with the purposes of a (non-species-ist) liberal cosmopolitanism! Because of science, we know that modern civilization has no dialectic or destiny… so we must pursue its “unfulfilled promises” and accept its “moral imperatives” instead!

Clinical biochemist Terence Kealey (Cato Unbound) makes the case against public science.

What would the world look like had governments not funded science? It would look like the UK or the United States did when those countries were the unchallenged superpowers of their day. […]

Cui bono? Who benefits from this fictitious economics of science? It’s the economists, universities, and defence contractors who benefit, at the taxpayers’ expense.

IPCC climatologist Patrick Michaels (Cato Unbound) says it’s worse even than that:

Imagine if a NASA administrator at a congressional hearing, upon being asked if global warming were of sufficient importance to justify a billion dollars in additional funding, replied that it really was an exaggerated issue, and the money should be spent elsewhere on more important problems.

It is a virtual certainty that such a reply would be one of his last acts as administrator.

Stanford professor Ruth Starkman (The New York Times) details the admissions process at UCLA.

When I asked about an Asian student who I thought was a 2 but had only received a 3, the officer noted: “Oh, you’ll get a lot of them.” She said the same when I asked why a low-income student with top grades and scores, and who had served in the Israeli army, was a 3. […]

In personal statements, we had been told to read for the “authentic” voice over students whose writing bragged of volunteer trips to exotic places or anything that “smacks of privilege.”

Megan McArdle (Bloomberg) spots a progressive trend in the entertainment industry. (Can Joe Biden explain it? I wonder…)

I think back to films such as “Peyton Place” and “A Summer Place,” which sort of shamefacedly argued that while premarital sex might be a bad idea, the people who engaged in it were after all people doing something natural and even understandable. And then the movies of 30 years later that celebrated premarital sex, and condemned the senseless prudery of earlier generations. What will crime dramas look like 30 years hence? Will we be celebrating meth dealers too? I know that seems totally incomprehensible — but then, imagine trying to explain to your grandmother, in 1950, that 60 years from now, mass entertainment would be celebrating the beauty of gay marriage — and not as a gag.

Mark Yarm (Wired) reviews Neill Blomkamp’s new film Elysium.

The year 2154 is somewhat arbitrary, but Blomkamp believes that Earth will someday look a lot like his movie’s dystopian portrayal. He currently places humanity’s odds of survival at 50-50: “The dice are going to be rolled, and either we’re going to end up coming out of this through technological innovation” — leaps in genetic engineering, say, or artificial intelligence — “or we’re going to go down the road of a Malthusian catastrophe.” That path leads to human extinction or, on the sunnier side, a return to the Dark Ages.

Recently Blomkamp has been leaning toward Malthusian catastrophe. As the car rolls west along LA’s Miracle Mile, he holds forth on just a few of the topics that engross him: overpopulation, pathogens, nukes; how America’s hegemony is slowly eroding en route to a “third world deathbed.” All this without a hint of gloom. He is capable of compartmentalizing these bleak visions, and right now he’s in his default mood: “slightly upbeat,” as he puts it.

But Blomkamp insists Elysium isn’t some sort of filmic Paul Krugman op-ed piece.

“Right,” says Steve Sailer. “It’s a lot more a filmic Pat Buchanan op-ed piece.”

Bryan Caplan feels sympathy for Sailer’s “citizenism” (immigration restrictionism).

Even though people love the implications of citizenism, they wince at the doctrine itself, and stigmatize its adherents. Adherents of orthodox moral theories [my emphasis], in contrast, enjoy respect and approbation. […]

Think about it like this: Steve Sailer’s policy views are much closer to the typical American’s than mine. Compared to me, he’s virtually normal. But the mainstream media is very sweet to me, and treats Steve like a pariah. I have to admit, it’s bizarre.

Greece continues to defend itself (barely) against invasion by fake “asylum seekers” and assorted other Third World trash, and the equally fake “European Court of Human Rights” won’t let them get away with it.

But one prisoner from Tunisia warns, “When I get out of here, the Greeks will get a taste of their own medicine. What they inflict on us is pure violence.”

(I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.)

Tim Stanley (The Telegraph) pronounces Islam “way more English” than the English Defence League. (Early in 2014, he will write a hit piece on the Dark Enlightenment.)

A former BBC Radio 3 controller describes a British concert series as “dangerously English.”

The Catholic Church pushes for Third World colonization.

Come September, the papacy will be pushing for a widespread and comprehensive immigration reform package on Capitol Hill that will open the doors to citizenship to roughly 11 million illegals.

The New York Times praises Christianity — African Christianity, that is.

Paul Cantor (The Hedgehog Review) reports on the end of the world:

In all these end-of-the-world scenarios, whatever triggers the apocalypse tends to affect the entire Earth more or less simultaneously. The fear of modernity in all these narratives is specifically a fear of global modernity. What upsets people is the sense that they are losing control of their lives in a world of impersonal and unresponsive institutions, and the fact that all this is happening on a global scale is especially unnerving.

Randall Parker is a harbinger of the state pension apocalypse:

The sorts of people who can generate the incomes (and therefore tax revenues) to pay all these liabilities are becoming rarer. Of course this means the Republicans are road kill. But the demographic ascent of the Democrats into power will give them something like command of the Titanic as it hits an iceberg. In fact, the Democrats decided to head for the iceberg as their sure fire way to get permanent control of the ship.

Have you thought about your life raft?

Kevin Williamson may be the only reason to read National Review:

The United States is not going to fall for a strongman government. Instead of delegating power to a would-be president-for-life, we delegate it to a bureaucracy-without-death. You do not need to install a dictator when you’ve already had a politically supercharged permanent bureaucracy in place for 40 years or more. As is made clear by everything from campaign donations to the IRS jihad, the bureaucracy is the Left, and the Left is the bureaucracy. Elections will be held, politicians will come and go, but if you expand the power of the bureaucracy, you expand the power of the Left, of the managers and minions who share Barack Obama’s view of the world. Barack Obama isn’t the leader of the free world; he’s the front man for the permanent bureaucracy, the smiley-face mask hiding the pitiless yawning maw of total politics.

USG promises not to overthrow the president of Syria. Something about poison gas? Meh.

John Kerry gave an impassioned speech that the civilized world cannot let this atrocity stand, on the theory that the circumstances that led to 99 percent of the Syrians deaths so far did not warrant action, but that the last one percent have died in a fashion that is intolerable.

USG demands to be taken seriously!

In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

And Peter Bergen (CNN) warns us:

Doing nothing will not be treated kindly by future historians writing in the same vein as Power.

Adam Curtis (BBC) has a gerbil, and it is classified top secret.

I want to tell some stories about MI5 — and the very strange people who worked there. They are often funny, sometimes rather sad — but always very odd.

The stories also show how elites in Britain have used the aura of secret knowledge as a way of maintaining their power. But as their power waned the “secrets” became weirder and weirder.

They were helped in this by another group who also felt their power was waning — journalists. And together the journalists and spies concocted a strange, dark world of treachery and deceit which bore very little relationship to what was really going on. And still doesn’t.

Keith Lowe (Financial Times) rethinks “the Good War.”

The D-day landings were accompanied by what Roberts calls a “veritable tsunami of male lust,” which left the local population reeling. Her research in the Normandy archives has uncovered dozens of instances of sexual assault, sexual coercion and public indecency by American soldiers. In Le Havre, for example, it became almost impossible for local people to go out without witnessing soldiers having sex in public with prostitutes. Many Frenchmen claimed that the Americans behaved far worse than the Germans had ever done: “Attacked, robbed, run over both on the street and in our houses,” wrote one.


Likewise the idea that the Japanese had a monopoly on cruelty is also revealed as a myth. Moore recounts dozens of instances of American soldiers acting every bit as brutally as the Japanese, including hacking prisoners to death, beheading them, and keeping dried Japanese ears or fingers as gruesome mementoes of combat. As Moore baldly states: “in this regard Americans were no different than their counterparts in East Asia.” In fact, the legendary Japanese refusal to surrender was largely due to fear of torture by the Americans rather than out of any particular fanaticism.


While reviewers and academics might welcome a new wave of revisionism, there is nothing to suggest that the general public will react accordingly. Nobody likes to see holes punctured in their dreams.

The comments, sadly, bear this out.

Handle finally has a home. The Castle Saint John lowers its drawbridge. Legionnaire establishes a beachhead from which his troops can infiltrate the Cathedral:

Make your public face liberal, and in private (with those you feel can be convinced of the truth) bring those willing to open their eyes over to the dark side.

Gregory Cochran takes a stand:

I intend to occasionally make a clear statement of some hateful fact — not necessarily because I have anything new to say on the subject (which is what I prefer). Someone has to corrupt the rising generations.

Bryce Laliberté has advice for student reactionaries; he also draws up a taxonomy of the Reactosphere. Matt Forney says the blog is dead (and why). Amos & Gromar, Laliberté and Legionnaire celebrate a schism between reaction and the Manosphere. John Derbyshire commemorates the 50th anniversary of a certain famous speech. Nick Steves rounds up reactionary youth.


All this global warming — brrrrr… (image)


Lauren Fox (Salon) interviews Richard Spencer for what he calls “the most flattering hatchet job in history.”

Richard Spencer sat sipping his chai latte at the Red Caboose, a train-themed coffee shop in downtown Whitefish, Mont. Clean-cut and restrained, he reminded me of a hundred outdoors-obsessed people I had known growing up here in the Flathead Valley, a resort area nestled in the shadows of Glacier National Park.

But Spencer’s tidy appearance is about more than his sense of propriety; it’s a recruitment tool. Spencer advocates for white separatism and he wants to shake his movement’s reputation for brutality and backwardness.

Business Insider purges Pax Dickinson for insulting members of the privileged classes (specifically, blacks and women). Cowardly, racist, professionally swarthy Anil Dash can’t decide if he’s oppressed or oppressing:

We talked for about 20 minutes. He offered up a pretty boringly conventional defense of male privilege, and when I described the role of actual satire and comedy in punching up instead of punching down, he revealed that he sees attacking feminists and equality activists as punching up. There was some pointless bickering from me about the inanity of that perspective. […]

There was also a pretty dogged pitch for his startup, which will get all kinds of warm huzzahs from the intersection of MRAs, Bitcoin fans, NSA critics and Redditors. I was pretty amazed that he went for it. He flat out said that he wants his startup to be funded and wasn’t sure if it’d be possible after all of his, and I replied that it realistically wasn’t going to happen without the say-so of someone like me, and I wasn’t inclined to give some VC the nod on this. On reflection, I’ll be explicit: If you’re a venture capitalist, and you invest in Pax’s startup without a profound, meaningful and years-long demonstration of responsibility from Pax beforehand, you’re complicit in extending the tech industry’s awful track record of exclusion, and it’s unacceptable.

Moldbug responds with the best article of the year.

There was also a pretty dogged pitch for his film, which will get all kinds of warm huzzahs from the intersection of atheists, pacifists, communists and Jews. I was pretty amazed that he went for it. He flat out said that he wants his film to be funded and wasn’t sure if it’d be possible after all of his, and I replied that it realistically wasn’t going to happen without the say-so of someone like me, and I wasn’t inclined to give some producer the nod on this.

On reflection, I’ll be explicit: If you’re a producer, and you invest in Dalton Trumbo’s film without a profound, meaningful and years-long demonstration of responsibility from Dalton beforehand, you’re complicit in extending the film industry’s awful track record of communism, and it’s unacceptable.

David Holmes (PandoDaily) identifies “the worst site on the Internet,” which also happens to be “the most offensive startup of all time.”

It’s called GhettoTracker and its purpose is to show nice, law-abiding families (like the smiling, conspicuously white foursome on its homepage) what neighborhoods are “safe” to visit and which are, in the website’s offensive parlance, “ghetto.”

Um, where to begin. First it’s pretty detrimental to society when we reinforce the idea that poor or crime-heavy areas are places to be categorically avoided or shamed.

Popular Science stops accepting comments because too many people are questioning the official truth of Lysenkoism — I mean, “global warming” — I mean, “climate change.” (Which is definitely a real thing!)

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine [my emphasis] is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

Politicians urge scientists to cover up the nonexistence of “global warming.”

Environmentalist cult leader David Suzuki is exposed as a fraud (again):

Suzuki stands by his claims that politicians who question the global warming faith should be jailed. Then, when host Tony Jones looks surprised, he says he hasn’t thought it through.

A European doctoral candidate tears into the research side of the Cathedral:

Very quickly after your initiation in the academic world, you learn that being “too honest” about your work is a bad thing and that stating your research’s shortcomings “too openly” is a big faux pas.

David Attenborough thinks we need to control Third World population growth.

He warned if humans do not act soon, the “natural world will do something,” as he argues famine in Ethiopia is about “too many people for too little piece of land.”

He suggested humans are “blinding ourselves” to the problem, claiming: “We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That’s barmy.”

Pacific Standard reports that Jeffrey Sachs has (shockingly) failed to eradicate poverty in Africa.

Sachs became obsessed with Africa during his first visit to the continent, a trip to Zambia in 1995, when the underfunded health care system had been totally overwhelmed by AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The suffering and death Sachs saw shocked him, and he began reading everything he could about poverty, devouring works on agriculture, nutrition, disease, education, and commerce, synthesizing what he’d learned for papers and reports. Eventually he devised a massive experiment in foreign intervention at the village level. If it succeeded (or, in Sachs’ view, when it succeeded) in a handful of villages, it could then be expanded to cover entire countries and even — why not? — all of Africa.


But the road to success was not nearly as smooth — or knowable — as Sachs had predicted. The original plan was for the people of Dertu to preserve their nomadic lifestyle. But the abundance of donated food and services drew people from far and wide and induced them to settle. What had originally been little more than a watering hole for camels became a sprawling shantytown, its streets clogged with garbage. The new livestock market failed. The one water pump broke down. People began to fight among themselves for distributed goods. There was drought, followed by flooding. There were epidemics. There was theft, malingering, misreporting, and more.

Hey, at least Zambia is no longer under colonial rule. I mean, just look at the hideous colonial scheming of American adventurer Frederick Russell Burnham, known as “The King of Scouts” (1899):

Gold, both from quartz and placer, has positively come out of this northern country, and its sources will be traced. As the country comes under the active sway of the white man, and the raidings of one tribe by another are rigorously put down, it will be found to produce a still greater variety of products. Its cotton may be as famed as that of Egypt, its coffee of like quality to that of Blantyre, and its fibres and rubber equal to any grown. There is here a great field for the patient and energetic colonist for years to come — to control and direct the different tribes of natives, and to organize and develop its permanent industries. It may yet be that the thin bands of steel creeping ever northward will do for the Empire what that thin red line has done so often in every corner of the earth.

(Kenya, too, probably wishes the British and the Germans would come back.)

Speaking of disillusionment, Olivia Blanchard (The Atlantic) quits Teach for America.

I had few insights or resources to draw on when preteen boys decided recess would be the perfect opportunity to beat each other bloody, or when parents all but accused me of being racist during meetings. Or when a student told me that his habit of doing nothing during class stemmed from his (admittedly sound) logic that “I did the same thing last year and I passed.”

“In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation,” the Pope tells atheists they don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven.

Tunisia enjoys the triumph of democracy:

In Tunisia, the euphoric Arab Spring has descended into a summer of discontent. Two years after launching the Arab Spring, setting in motion changes that have convulsed the Middle East and North Africa, worsening national conditions have soured Tunisians’ views of both their political leadership and many national institutions associated with the country’s democratic awakening. Faith in democracy’s efficacy in solving Tunisia’s problems has also weakened. […]

The public’s demand for political stability rose dramatically in the past twelve months. Last year, a majority (55%) said it was more important to have a democratic government, even if there was some political instability. Roughly four-in-ten (38%) thought it was more important to have stability. In 2013, attitudes have flipped — just 37% now choose democracy and 56% say stability is a higher priority, even if the government is not fully democratic.

The Pew Research Center, which considers itself “a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public,” insists that the “key components of democracy” include “a judicial system that treats everyone the same way,” “fair elections,” and “a media that is free from government censorship.” Just like in America, right?

Egyptian Muslims continue to target Christians.

Not only are the churches, monasteries, and institutions of Egypt’s Christians under attack by the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters — nearly 100 now have been torched, destroyed, ransacked, etc. — but Christians themselves are under attack all throughout Egypt, with practically zero coverage in Western media.

Syrian rebels are now targeting Christians too. Footage shows a rebel leader cutting out and eating a Syrian soldier’s heart.

“Just whose war is this?” Pat Buchanan (Rare) wonders.

Is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

The New York Times doth protest a little too much:

“There’s nothing sinister, nothing conspiratorial, nothing wrong with the lobbying arm relating to Israel and the Middle East supporting the president on this issue,” said Abraham H. Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League’s national director.

Vladimir Putin trolls USG… in The New York Times… on September 11.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too.

Noah Berlatsky (The Atlantic) ties “anti-interventionism” to “racism” — specifically, “neo-Confederates.” Obama promptly turns neo-Confederate.

The window where you were racist if you didn’t want to bomb brown people has slammed shut.

Victor Davis Hanson (PJ Media) explains “multiculturalism” and Islam.

The end result is that Western elites have no concept that their culture, religious heritage, or contemporary values have made them in any way exceptional. Apple is in Silicon Valley and not Islamabad: no doubt the legacy of colonialism. Millions seek to reach the U.S.; none wait in line to go to Egypt or Algeria: no doubt imperialism still at work. There is no Princeton or MIT in Syria: again racism or class oppression.


In terms of their amoral cost-benefit analysis, a few may die, hopefully abroad, on the altar of multicultural piety, so that millions more might live in ecumenical harmony.

The tragic truth is just the opposite: thousands will die on the altar of multicultural piety, so that millions more will not live in any sort of harmony.

Arnold Kling and a few of his fellow court intellectuals meet up for a fun little discussion of the future of the free world (and manage to thoroughly disgust Foseti in the process).

Tyler [Cowen] pictures an economy evolving over the next twenty years to one with a slice of high earners (the 20 percent or so whose skills complement the ever-expanding power of computers) and then a large group that lives comfortably but without a financial cushion to protect against adverse shocks to health or other major risks.

Matt Yglesias wonders how, in a world that requires technical skill and social skills, those of us in the room have survived. It seems that most work for think tanks, newspapers, and other non-profits. Tyler replies that our presence in the room is indicative of marketing skills. Each of us has proven adept at marketing, with wealthy donors as our consumers in most cases. Steve Teles points out that as society’s rich accumulate wealth beyond what they can consume, their philanthropic ideas will, for better or worse, allocate society’s resources. Afterward, it occurs to me that this suggests that there will emerge a toady class, meaning people whose work in one way or another flatters the wealthy.


What most concerns the discussants, including McArdle, William Galston, Jonathan Rauch, and Brink Lindsey, are the social implications of losing the middle class. […] Tyler insists that societies will not fracture, nor will redistributionist demagogues take power. Factors favoring stability include aging, surveillance technology, the skill of the rich at controlling the political environment, nativism, NIMBYism, and the basic comfort achieved by the lower class. […]

Tyler says that in the long run mood-altering drugs may be a solution.

Mark Steyn (National Review) argues that “worse is the new normal.”

Obama’s pointless, traceless super-spending is now (as they used to say after 9/11) “the new normal.” Nancy Pelosi assured the nation last weekend that everything that can be cut has been cut and there are no more cuts to be made. And the disturbing thing is that, as a matter of practical politics, she may well be right. Many people still take my correspondent’s view: If you have old money well managed, you can afford to be stupid — or afford the government’s stupidity on your behalf. If you’re a social-activist celebrity getting $20 million per movie, you can afford the government’s stupidity. If you’re a tenured professor or a unionized bureaucrat whose benefits were chiseled in stone two generations ago, you can afford it. If you’ve got a wind farm and you’re living large on government “green energy” investments, you can afford it. If you’ve got the contract for signing up Obamaphone recipients, you can afford it.

But out there beyond the islands of privilege most Americans don’t have the same comfortably padded margin for error, and they’re hunkering down. Obamacare is something new in American life: the creation of a massive bureaucracy charged with downsizing you — to a world of fewer doctors, higher premiums, lousier care, more debt, fewer jobs, smaller houses, smaller cars, smaller, fewer, less; a world where worse is the new normal. Would Americans, hitherto the most buoyant and expansive of people, really consent to live such shrunken lives? If so, mid-20th-century America and its assumptions of generational progress will be as lost to us as the Great Ziggurat of Ur was to 19th-century Mesopotamian date farmers.

The Washington Post covers a move by the city health department to enforce a “mandatory 24-hour waiting period” for “tattoos and body piercings”:

The body art rules are the latest product of a city government that has occasionally struggled to reconcile its socially liberal sensibilities with a zeal for regulation.

Leading Jonah Goldberg to call out the myth of “live-and-let-live liberalism”:

Social liberalism — better understood as progressivism — is a worldview that seeks to use the state to support its preferred values and culture. That isn’t libertarianism. Support for abortion rights does not make you a libertarian; it makes you someone who wants very lax regulations on abortion for ideological reasons. Which is why socially liberal bureaucrats in D.C. want to make you wait 24 hours to get a tattoo of a baby on your arm, but there’s no waiting to have an abortion.

Non-white “social scientist” Eduardo Bonilla-Silva uses Duke University as a platform for declaring white people “as racist as they’ve ever been.”

“We must fight white supremacy,” Bonilla-Silva said. “The only way to remove racism in America is to remove systemic racism.”

In other words, we must systematically defeat white people qua white people.

Ben Stein (The American Spectator) explains equality:

It’s great to talk about equality, but hardly any of us really wants to be just “equal.” The blacks want preferences in schools and jobs and they get them. The poor want to be rich. The rich want to stay rich. “Equality” is a code word for “take away something from someone else and give it to me.”

Feminist “libertarian” slut Cathy Reisenwitz (Sex and the State) wants to make it illegal to call her a slut:

Say my actions are completely and totally cooperative, but frowned upon. Maybe I’m doing heroin, or having sex with lots of dudes. What right [my emphasis] then does anyone have to coerce me by threatening to criticize [my emphasis], ridicule, shame or ostracize me?

Matthew Yglesias (Slate) sees a conspiracy in male success. Surprisingly, he declines to apply this reasoning to Jews.

Men are controlling all the big companies and the big pools of money in this country. That’s your patriarchy right there. If you look around at whose [sic] running the show in the American economy it’s a bunch of men. And I find it hard to believe that doesn’t matter.

The feminists who strip for money turn out to be run by a patriarch and selected for beauty.

Despite the title, Dylan Love’s Business Insider piece on the Manosphere, ‘Inside Red Pill, The Weird New Cult For Men Who Don’t Understand Women,’ is really not bad:

Those who “swallow the pill” maintain that it’s men, not women, who have been socially disenfranchised. Feminism is considered a damaging ideology and Red Pillers are quick to cite examples that bolster their points, some going so far as to argue that society is outright anti-male. Red Pill followers have their own politics, language, and culture. And they’re growing: Eight months ago, Red Pill had only 100 followers. Today, it has more than 15,000.

Helen Smith (National Review) must not understand women either:

I am surprised how many women have no or little empathy for men. It is important to understand where men are coming from, how they think, and what they fear when it comes to marriage. The law and culture tend to protect women and to harm men. Men are starting to realize this, and women need to understand that men have few reproductive rights, have few legal rights in divorce, and are seen as the bad guy in marriages that go wrong. It is not immaturity for men to be reluctant to marry, it is a rational choice not to place oneself in a harmful legal contract that gives them no safety net.

Seth Kugel (The New York Times) discovers that even the country class can have a rudimentary form of “culture.”

David Barnett returns, demanding that science fiction “face up to discrimination.” This turns out to mean: it’s not okay when a lot of white men want to do something, because white men are inherently inferior.

Science fiction loves a good paradox. Here’s one for you: how can a genre that dreams up alien cultures and mythic races in such minute detail seemingly ignore the ethnic, religious, gender and sexual diversity right here on the home planet, here in the real world?

In other words, for a school of writing that swims so deeply in the unconventional, why is science fiction and fantasy so darned conventional?


Saladin Ahmed […] called for diversity in science fiction to be extended even further — to class. He tweeted: “Class diversity also needs to be part of #DiversityinSFF. I want fewer kings and starship captains, more coach drivers and space waitresses.”

One of the most telling tweets about the whole business came from London-born, US-based editor and writer Maurice Broaddus, who said simply: “Outside the #worldcon hotel [in San Antonio, Texas], brown people everywhere. At #worldcon, it takes two hands to count us.”

The Golden Dawn takes out communist rap “artist” Pavlos Fyssas.

Raheem Kassam (The Libertarian Republic) defends monarchy, citing Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

The fetishisation of representative democracy, or rather, the “X-Factorisation” of big decisions effectively rules out what rational thinkers believe is the correct way to institute limited government. That is through great leadership.

The Times-Leader in Pennsylvania remains trapped in the 19th century:

A town hall is where issues are debated — with spirit, if warranted — and eventually decided after sufficient discussion and deliberation. After all, having differences of opinion openly aired is key to what makes our representative form of government work.

Rick David (Clash Daily) wants to dump the GOP — with curious use of future tense:

The Republican Party is not the home of conservatives and will become the Whig party of the 21st century. It will outlive its usefulness as an alternative to the progressive Democrats. If conservatives are to be ignored and unable to achieve anything through the electoral process, why should they bother to be involved with their opponents? Why should we compromise principle when defeat is pre-determined?

The Last Psychiatrist makes us feel special:

That’s where we are right now, this is what the media has trained you for, detecting racism or hypocrisy or some other character flaw in the speaker as a proxy for the complexities of the issues so you don’t have to think.

Neoreaction continues to expand. “Why now?” Foseti asks.

The history of conservatism seems to be: 1) develop of a set of ideas; 2) have your ideas crushed; and 3) develop a new set of ideas and apologize for the first set. Repeat forever.

At some point, once this information was all readily available for nothing, someone was bound to piece this all together — assuming such a person could consume a huge amount of information and synthesize it into something meaningful.

Fred Reed says it’s all over. Frost does his best to stay sane.

This is the secret that allows the modern truth-seeker to retain his sanity: The ability to combine pessimism with joy; the recognition of all that is sad and evil about our world, paired with a refusal to let that pessimism reach down into our spirit; A commitment to doing good works, sweeping our own doorstep, choosing right action, and speaking the truth.

No surrender, Free Northerner:

Reactionaries need to stand strong as individuals to destroy the illusion of control the progressivists have.

Legionnaire defends his infiltration strategy. James Donald performs a cladistic analysis of neoreaction. Michael Anissimov lists some of neoreaction’s empirical claims. Nick Land damns this Obamanation, meditates on Puritanism, and goes after “liberaltarianism” with a shotgun. The Observer advances his pawns. Bruce Charlton explains why the left is winning. Amos & Gromar dismantle feminist “respect.” Heartiste shows us the nuts and bolts of Cathedral indoctrination. Agents unknown write an introduction to Moldbuggery. Bryce Laliberté publishes What Is Neoreaction? Matt Sigl plans an article on the Dark Enlightenment; Michael Anissimov predicts disaster.

A House With No Child opens its doors. iParallax appears before our eyes.

Confederate Capitol Building

Salon finally loses it completely (image)


ABC runs a hit piece on the Manosphere: ‘Women Battle Online Anti-Women Hate From the “Manosphere.”’

Deep in the underbelly of the Internet is a hidden corner known as the “Manosphere” — a collection of websites, Facebook pages and chat rooms where men vent their rage and spew anti-women rhetoric.

(Nicholas Pell, Heartiste, Matt Forney, and Judgy Bitch are decidedly unimpressed.)

Gavin McInnes (Vice) kicks the hell out of feminists; law professor Mary Anne Franks (ABC) has a good cry.

“Men and women both are happier when they actually have accepted the fact that there is no such thing as innate characteristics, there is no such thing as women really want to do this and men really want to do that,” she said.

Nick Land is the subject of what he accurately describes as “a brutal, lazy, and dishonest hit piece” by Jason Kuznicki (Cato Unbound).

Dark neo-reactionary ideology is a three-winged beast composed of social conservatism, radical libertarianism, and purportedly Darwinistic white nationalism, as here Land explains with relative concision.

(Handle tries to be civil with him.)

J. Arthur Bloom (The Daily Caller) discovers white nationalism:

Next weekend, the second-largest government building will play host to a white nationalist confab, entitled “The Future of Identity,” featuring some of the far right’s most notorious speakers, theorists and figureheads.

Lauren Fox (Salon) exposes the hate!!! Well, sort of.

Near the White House, the men — and handful of women — bought books about the IQ differences between races and listened for nearly nine hours, as speakers from the U.S., Switzerland and France carried on about their shared European heritage, the impending financial collapse and the absurdity of believing all men are born free and created equal.


During my time at the conference, I encountered a mostly congenial crowd, although one man whose name I didn’t have the pleasure of learning berated me for writing for Salon and asked if I “felt guilty” for writing for a magazine that “attacks people.”


One might have expected a gathering like this to be full of swastikas or skinheads committed to a common cause or united in a call for uprising, but that’s not the aesthetic Richard Spencer is trying to cultivate. Not even all of the attendees wanted to talk about race.

With a special guest appearance by…

“I don’t think there is any hope of people from old stock German families from the South and the sons of Yankee lawyers from Massachusetts to live together in the same place without a dramatic reshaping of the culture,” Wesley Morganston, a 20-year-old with long brown hair and washed-out black jeans, argued with an older conference attendee.

Meanwhile, Mark Shea (Patheos) discovers genuine Christian conservatism:

It will be interesting to see how much of the epically discernment-free conservative community is stone blind to the racist white supremacy garbage these people are peddling as it has managed to be stone blind to so many other obvious red flags.

Orson Scott Card (Deseret News) discovers progress:

As my politics diverged from the political correctness that has captured the left — I mean, (in) 1976 I was a Daniel Patrick Moynihan liberal Democrat — and without changing any of my principles, I’ve now become quite a right-winger in the eyes of the left. And I’m a little baffled by it because I’m a liberal and they’re not. They’re repressive, punishing, intolerant of the slightest variation, absolutely the opposite of what it means to be a liberal. But that’s the way it goes. They still get the label. I am the fact of what it meant to be a liberal. I find the most liberals who feel like I do among people who are labeled as conservatives. It’s a very odd thing.

Julia Ioffe (The New Republic) fantasizes about the president deploying tanks against Republicans.

Joel Mathis (Philadelphia magazine) reports that Americans are “losing faith” in democracy.

Dictators often use weak and divided governments, or governments that are ineffective during hard times, to step up and take the reins of power — usually in the name of the people he is plotting to dominate, often practically begged by them to do so. Hitler won an election. Napoleon was named emperor after a plebiscite in his favor. It’s not difficult to see conditions in America being ripe for a single-minded person of ambition.

Pat Buchanan (LewRockwell.com) wonders if Red State America is seceding.

The Montpelier Manifesto of the Second Vermont Republic concludes:

“Citizens, lend your names to this manifesto and join in the honorable task of rejecting the immoral, corrupt, decaying, dying, failing American Empire and seeking its rapid and peaceful dissolution before it takes us all down with it.”

Tech entrepreneur Marc Andreessen foresees an explosion of new countries.

“You’re going to get a much larger number of countries,” he said, before noting that the proliferation of nations could be a positive force in the long term, measured by a span of 100 years or more.

“The transition is going to be very painful,” he said, “but I think ultimately it’s going to be very healthy.”

Tech entrepreneur Chamath Palihapitiya calls the government “completely useless.”

If companies shut down, the stock market would collapse. If the government shuts down, nothing happens and we all move on, because it just doesn’t matter. Stasis in the government is actually good for all of us. It means they can neither do anything semi-useful nor anything really stupid. They just sit there and they just kind of, you know…

Tech entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan contemplates Silicon Valley’s ultimate exit at Startup School 2013:

There’s four cities that used to run the United States in the postwar era: Boston with higher ed; New York City with Madison Avenue, books, Wall Street, and newspapers; Los Angeles with movies, music, Hollywood; and, of course, D.C. with laws and regulations, formally running it. And so I call them the Paper Belt, after the Rust Belt of yore. And in the last twenty years, a new competitor to the Paper Belt arose out of nowhere: Silicon Valley. And by accident, we’re putting a horse head in all of their beds. We are becoming stronger than all of them combined.

This leads Anand Giridharadas (The New York Times) to wonder:

First the slave South, now this. Is Silicon Valley trying to secede from America?


Not everyone in technology wants to flee, though. Catherine Bracy, director of community organizing at Code for America, criticized this genre of thinking as reflecting a simple lack of exposure by many Valley engineers: “Most of them aren’t confronted with or don’t have an understanding of most problems regular people are facing. If they had to collect food stamps or ride the bus or send their kid to public school, they might be more empathetic to the role that government plays in people’s lives and more interested in fixing those problems than opting out.”

(It does not seem to occur to Mr. Giridharadas that the existence of these people and their “community organizers” might be the ultimate cause of such flight.)

Mr. Srinivasan is happy to let reformers stay behind. “The best part is this,” he said. “The people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology — they won’t follow you out there.”

Nitasha Tiku (Gawker), who assisted in the purge of Pax Dickinson, responds with another high-pitched shriek:

This is the Tea Party with better gadgets.

Salon finally loses it completely, with ‘Christian delusions are driving the GOP insane,’ ‘Tea Party secedes: The GOP civil war is over, and so is the GOP,’ ‘Modern GOP is still the party of Dixie,’ ‘The South is holding America hostage,’ and let us not overlook ‘Fox News and talk radio brainwashed my dad.’

He believed it when Rush Limbaugh told him that climate change is a hoax. He called Al Gore an “asshole” even [my emphasis] after watching the entire An Inconvenient Truth.

The Silk Road comes to an end.

Jon “Stewart” Leibowitz reminds us that the purpose of his “comedy” show is to advance global communism, so any apparent criticism of same is purely accidental:

Jon Stewart trotted out a choir on Thursday night’s “Daily Show” to deliver a message to members of the media who used his comedy to criticize Obamacare and its administrative chief, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: “Go f*ck yourselves.”

Communist radio host Thom Hartmann recognizes a threat to democracy in “billionaires like the Koch Brothers, who are corrupting our political process, while destroying the environment and poisoning us.” He exposes these would-be oligarchs in AlterNet, which is secretly funded by progressive billionaire George Soros through the “Independent Media Institute.” Don’t worry, though: AlterNet will gladly explain to you that Mr. Soros “believes in democracy, positive international relations and effective strategies to reduce poverty, among other things.”

Steven Rosenfeld (AlterNet) identifies the number one reason “why the Tea Party is so unpopular” — namely, that many of its elected representatives believe they should represent their electorate.

For the past 25 years, Pew said that polls routinely find that about 55 percent of American voters want representatives in Congress to put local concerns ahead of “what they think is best for the country.” Tea Partiers disproportionately take that view. “Among Tea Party Republicans, fully 76 percent say members should vote against a bill their constituents oppose, even if he or she thinks it is in the best interest of the country,” Pew said. “Just 22 percent say the lawmaker should prioritize the national interest.”

Professionally swarthy “expert on civil rights and antidiscrimination law” Richard Thompson Ford (The American Interest) is unable to identify any intellectual influence on American politics. Paging Walter Lippmann

Rather like Booker T. Washington, [Thomas] Sowell argues that today’s racial inequalities are the fault of a black culture that encourages the most talented to squander their time and energy mastering esoteric social theories that blame others for their problems, rather than learning the practical skills that will help them solve those problems themselves. He complains that a malcontented “intelligentsia have demanded an equality of outcome and of social recognition, irrespective of the skills, behavior or performance of the group to which they belong or on whose behalf they spoke.”

Anyone familiar with the academic trends of recent decades will recognize some of Sowell’s bêtes noires. Still, one has to wonder which country Sowell is writing about, where “intellectuals can influence the way millions of other people see race.” Is it France, a nation proud of its cerebral culture, where philosophers and social theorists are celebrities? Or perhaps Germany, birthplace of modern post-graduate education, where analytic precision is built into the mother tongue? Certainly not the United States, where folksy vernacular is a sign of moral virtue and erudition is held in contempt; where the ethos of democratic egalitarianism means the uneducated citizen feels entitled not only to his own opinion, but as Tip O’Neill once quipped, to his own facts. Whatever flaws one may find in America’s racial politics — and there are many — it strains credulity to blame them on the dominance of intellectuals. And this makes one worry that Sowell is playing up to a specific audience — an audience that is eager to attack “ivory tower professors” for their supposed “liberal bias.”

Terry Newell (The Huffington Post), former director of training for the U.S. Department of Education and Dean of Faculty of the Federal Executive Institute, may in fact be mentally ill, having come to believe that the only alternative to American democracy, epitomized by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the first openly communist president, is Soviet-style bureaucratic tyranny.

Why do so many Americans protest against so many things, giving other countries the impression that most of what we do is shout at each other? Why is gridlock seemingly our only form of national government? Why do we have endless debate and so little progress on such major concerns as immigration reform, the budget, and the debt? No one abroad could be blamed for thinking that the United States is, in many respects, an embarrassment to its citizens. No one abroad could be blamed for being disenchanted with democracy, if this is what it looks like.

It may be helpful, however, for them to view the American scene from another perspective. Take Obamacare as one example. Universal, affordable, government-assisted health care was a project first proposed under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It took another seven decades of angry debate to enact it. Multiple states have challenged the Affordable Care Act in the courts, but most of it survived that challenge. Republicans rail against it, and legislatures and/or governors in many states are still undermining it. Americans who want health care under that law are, finally, faced with multiple options — on a web site that barely functions. Sloppy? Inefficient? Confusing? Yes. Yet, perhaps this is in part the price of freedom. If the United States was a top-down, rigidly hierarchical, centrally governed society, it would be relatively simple to implement, and enforce national health care. Yet, those who observe us from afar should recall that societies, like the former Soviet Union, that are top-down, rigid, hierarchical, and centrally governed are also more corrupt. They often fail to meet basic citizen needs. They also don’t last very long.

Ross Douthat (The New York Times) knows “why the right fights.”

For the American mainstream — moderate and apolitical as well as liberal — the Reagan era really was a kind of conservative answer to the New Deal era: A period when the right’s ideas were ascendant, its constituencies empowered, its favored policies pursued. But to many on the right, for the reasons the Frum of “Dead Right” suggested, it was something much more limited and fragmented and incomplete: A period when their side held power, yes, but one in which the framework and assumptions of politics remained essentially left-of-center, because the administrative state was curbed but barely rolled back, and the institutions and programs of New Deal and Great Society liberalism endured more or less intact.

This divide, I think, explains a lot of the mutual incomprehension surrounding size-of-government debates. To liberals and many moderates, it often seems like the right gets what it wants in these arguments and then just gets more extreme, demanding cuts atop cuts, concessions atop concessions, deregulation upon deregulation, tax cuts upon tax cuts. But to many conservatives, the right has never come remotely close to getting what it actually wants, whether in the Reagan era or the Gingrich years or now the age of the Tea Party — because what it wants is an actually smaller government, as opposed to one that just grows somewhat more slowly than liberals and the left would like. And this goal only ends up getting labeled as “extreme” in our debates, conservatives lament, because the right has never succeeded in dislodging certain basic assumptions about government established by F.D.R. and L.B.J. — under which a slower rate of spending growth is a “draconian cut,” an era of “small government” is one which in which the state grows immensely in absolute terms but holds steady as a share of G.D.P., and a rich society can never get rich enough to need less welfare spending per capita than it did when it was considerably poorer.

The EBT system goes down.

I shop in these markets on a regular basis and normally they are totally integrated, but the bottom line is with the EBT card system down I could count the number of non-white customers in three supermarkets on the fingers of one hand & still have fingers left over.

A Walmart store in Louisiana decides to let “customers” use the cards anyway.

The chaos that followed ultimately required intervention from local police, and left behind numerous carts filled to overflowing, apparently abandoned when the glitch-spurred shopping frenzy ended.

Michael Graham notes a “culture of ingratitude.”

English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson quits the group.

Mr Robinson said it was still his aim to “counter Islamist ideology,” although “not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.”

Much of the credit goes to Quilliam, a left-wing extremist “counter-extremist think tank” fanatically devoted to “the ideas of democracy, human rights and pluralism that underpin successful societies.”

In order to win the battle of ideas, it is imperative to regain control of the narrative from an unrepresentative minority who have managed to attract disproportionate attention in recent years and to demonstrate that equality, religious freedom and democracy are not principles which should belong to specific communities, but essential for us all.

Tyler Cowen (The Wall Street Journal) enjoys a nice plate of beans:

To sum up, Mr. Cowen believes that America is dividing itself in two. At the top will be 10% to 15% of high achievers, the “Tiger Mother” kids if you like, whose self-motivation and mastery of technology will allow them to roar away into the future. Then there will be everyone else, slouching into an underfunded future of lower economic expectations, shantytowns and an endless diet of beans. I’m not kidding about the beans.

Poor Americans, writes Mr. Cowen, will have to “reshape their tastes” and live more like Mexicans. “Don’t scoff at the beans,” he says. “With an income above the national average, I receive more pleasure from the beans, which I cook with freshly ground cumin and rehydrated, pureed chilies. Good tacos and quesadillas and tamales are cheap too, and that is one reason why they are eaten so frequently in low-income countries.”

So what am I to do to save my sons from this bean-filled future?

Valeurs Actuelles interviews Jean Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints.

How can Europe deal with these migrations?

There are only two solutions. Either we accommodate them and France — its culture, its civilisation — will be erased without even a funeral. In my view, that’s what’s going to happen. Or we don’t accommodate them at all — that means stop sacralising the Other and rediscover your neighbour, that means those next to you. Which means that we stop giving a damn sometime about these “Christian ideas gone mad,” as Chesterton said, or these depraved human rights, and that we take the indispensable measures to distance ourselves, without appeal, to avoid the dissolution of our country into a general métissage.

Wesley Morganston identifies priority research areas for neoreaction. Matt Forney explains how he became the most hated man on the Internet. Education Realist catches cheaters.

Scott Alexander returns with a lengthy ‘Anti-Reactionary FAQ’ (and further thoughts), prompting a number of responses: Michael Anissimov, Nick Steves, Foseti and Slate Star Codex commenter Sun Tzu Anime with general comments; Michael and James Donald with a defense of monarchy; Jim and Bryce with a left singularity; Jim, Bryce and Free Northerner with sex tips; Jim and the Carlyle Club with crime stats; Bryce on power; Scharlach on ancient Rome; and Jim on terror and slaughter.

Burning the diversity arch

Polish nationalists torch a rainbow monument to diversity (image)


The Cathedral discovers the new reaction. TechCrunch kicks things off:

Many of us yearn for a return to one golden age or another. But there’s a community of bloggers taking the idea to an extreme: they want to turn the dial way back to the days before the French Revolution.

Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy.

Good times are had by most in the comment section. (And in the recommended reading list: the cards of a certain Carlyle Club…)

Charles Stross, science fiction writer David Brin, and Khannea Suntzu of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies all more or less freak out about it. The horror!

Moldbug wishes for a better grade of critics. Amos & Gromar note that this is not the best way to contain neoreaction.

Bryce Laliberté publishes an article in The Daily Caller:

Neoreaction, alternatively called the Dark Enlightenment, is a disparate intellectual movement centered on some blogs that advocate a package of wholesale reforms to society. These reforms include, but certainly aren’t limited to, a return to traditional gender roles, monarchism, and typically a more libertarian-oriented economic system. There is a rough consensus on what is wrong with society and on what kind of societies there should be, but it would be an oversimplification to pretend each thinker is as deeply invested in each of these potential reforms.

And so does Wesley Morganston. (Nicely done, fellas.)

Return of Kings provokes a fair amount of controversy with ‘5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder.’ “Poisoning the Internet with its bald-faced misogyny and malice,” The Huffington Post declares; “one of the grossest fat-shaming examples of late,” according to Business Insider. The International Business Times characterizes the article as “undeniably horrific, cynical and terribly cruel” — then reposts it in its entirety. Roosh Vörek stands by his editorial decision:

The delivery of ideas like these may make some people uncomfortable, but they are based on our experiences and views of the world. We speak the truths that politically correct outlets are too afraid to share because of sensitive mainstream readers who lose their composure at anything they disagree with.

The New York Times discovers that women do not enjoy casual sex. As always, the patriarchy is to blame:

“The notion of sexual liberation, where men and women both had equal access to casual sex, assumed a comparable likelihood of that sex being pleasurable,” said Kim Wallen, a professor of neuroendocrinology at Emory University who studies female desire. “But that part of the playing field isn’t level.”

The lack of guidance is common, Dr. England said. “Women are not feeling very free in these casual contexts to say what they want and need,” she said. Part of the problem, she added, is that women still may be stigmatized for having casual sex.

Women don’t like sluts, John Tierney (The New York Times) reports:

“Women are indeed very capable of aggressing against others, especially women they perceive as rivals,” said Dr. Vaillancourt, now a psychologist at the University of Ottawa. “The research also shows that suppression of female sexuality is by women, not necessarily by men.”

Stigmatizing female promiscuity — a.k.a. slut-shaming — has often been blamed on men, who have a Darwinian incentive to discourage their spouses from straying. But they also have a Darwinian incentive to encourage other women to be promiscuous. Dr. Vaillancourt said the experiment and other research suggest the stigma is enforced mainly by women.

Metro shows us the modern corporate harem.

The artistic left devours its own as comics writer Brian Wood begs forgiveness for an eight-year-old failed pick-up attempt.

The writer of the all-female X-Men (2013) and numerous other comics starring women protagonists such as Channel Zero, Mara and Local, Wood’s work and reputation are strongly tied to an advocacy for women characters and collaborators, which made Fowler’s claims shocking to many. Specifically, Fowler accused Wood of “feigning interest” in her “pursuit of a comic career” at a convention as a prelude to some kind of rendezvous in his hotel room. […]

For her part, Fowler says her naming a specific person should not distract from dismantling the underlying sexism, misogyny and harassment that’s heretofore been relatively undiscussed in the comic book business. Immediately following her outing of Wood as the alleged offender, Fowler wrote via Twitter, “And f*** any other pro who thinks that he has a right to sexual favors because he writes funny books. [Women creators] are more valuable than that. And any industry that would blacklist you for calling out a lying sack of misogynistic pig offal (or his ilk) isn’t worth a good god DAMN.” She continued, “If you’re an editor/publisher and you know you have a predator in your stage of talent, REIN. HIM. IN. Or else you’re to blame too” and “If you want women to feel safe in comics, start making some top tier changes to prove it. That’s STEP ONE.” She concluded that series of tweets with, “CLEAN IT UP, gentlemen.”

I guess women really do ruin everything.

“Movember” is exposed as a “microaggression.” So too commas.

A Marxist atheist enjoys the musings of Theodore Beale:

I happened upon the Scalzi/Vox feud. I checked out both blogs. The verdict: Scalzi — rather dull and typical upper middle class views, Vox — incendiary but rigorous, consistent, and most importantly, often funny. As a Marxist I can’t resist good polemic, even from the other side. I lurk about once a month.

Mickey Kaus (The Daily Caller) thinks he knows why Harry Reid is nuking the filibuster:

But why make the Dem’s anti-filibuster stand on this issue — the issue of appointments to the D.C. Circuit of the federal Court of Appeals? Why was that so crucial? A good Marxist would know the answer:


Regulation is D.C.’s economic substructure, its mode of production, as Marx might say — even more so than legislation. Those big gleaming office buildings aren’t filled with Congressional lobbyists! They’re filled with administrative lawyers. Now, with a full 11 member court stacked to favor Democrats, there will be even more rules to litigate, more counsel to hire, more mansions to house them and restaurants to feed them. Whatever happens in the rest of America, the capital’s economic future is secure.

Now, says law professor William Jacobson (Legal Insurrection), the fake opposition can finally make itself useful:

The seemingly inexorable march towards economic socialism and political statism has been accomplished through legislative and judicial ratchets which, once established, were all but impossible to reverse in part because the filibuster helped lock in the agenda and those supporting the agenda.

Because of the ratchet, the nation moved only in one direction: Towards redistribution of wealth, and bigger government.

Because of the ratchet, there was little or no hope of fundamental reversals.

Not anymore.


The ratchet has been broken. And opportunity created, even if dependent upon future electoral success.

It’s now up to us to seize the opportunity.

Michael Walsh (PJ Media) begs to differ:

We used to think that changing Congress meant changing which party controlled it. Now we know better. Real change can’t begin until the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party is gone. Fundamental transformation works both ways, and two can play at that game.

Robert Merry charts the long, slow death of the U.S. Senate.

China Matters re-examines the Gettysburg address.

The decision to repurpose and escalate the Civil War paved the way for eventual Northern victory but also created serious difficulties for Lincoln and the nation. First of all, the switch to the “new birth of freedom” narrative meant, with the inescapable irony that dogs American history, that the freedom of the vociferous and significant anti-war partisans in the North had to be squelched.

Instead of letting the South go to seek its own destiny, the United States was committed to destroying it militarily and politically, and undertaking a long exercise of reconstruction in the south — what we now call “nation-building” — that today has still not achieved the seamless and productive political and cultural union of north and south.

And in order to justify a war whose aims were, by any close reading of the constitution as it stood in 1862, unconstitutional and opposed by a vast majority of voters (in a peacetime environment, opposition to emancipation was something that most northern as well as southern whites happily endorsed), it was necessary to stretch the law to its breaking point…and justify the carnage because, well, “Freedom” — an excuse that Lincoln’s successors, including both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have both been most happy to invoke.

Forbes features Kuwabatake Sanjuro’s “Assassination Market.”

Sanjuro’s grisly ambitions go beyond raising the funds to bankroll a few political killings. He believes that if Assassination Market can persist and gain enough users, it will eventually enable the assassinations of enough politicians that no one would dare to hold office. He says he intends Assassination Market to destroy “all governments, everywhere.”

“I believe it will change the world for the better,” writes Sanjuro, who shares his handle with the nameless samurai protagonist in the Akira Kurosawa film “Yojimbo.” (He tells me he chose it in homage to the creator of the online black market Silk Road, who called himself the Dread Pirate Roberts, as well Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto.) “Thanks to this system, a world without wars, dragnet panopticon-style surveillance, nuclear weapons, armies, repression, money manipulation, and limits to trade is firmly within our grasp for but a few bitcoins per person. I also believe that as soon as a few politicians gets offed and they realize they’ve lost the war on privacy, the killings can stop and we can transition to a phase of peace, privacy and laissez-faire.”

India enjoys the marvelous benefits of diversity:

Goa’s Art and Culture Minister Dayanand Mandrekar claimed Nigerians were a “cancer,” and dubbed their actions detrimental to the tourism industry. […]

After the rioting, Goa’s Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar ordered police to find and expel any Nigerians living illegally in the state. Goan parliamentarian Shantaram Naik was equally undiplomatic.

“Nigerians misuse education schemes, violate the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), indulge in the drug trade and yet try to boss over Goans, which no civilised society would tolerate,” said Naik.

Polish nationalists have a grand old time on Independence Day:

The principal target of the rioters appeared to be any manifestation of left-wing, liberal views. After the crowd had moved on from the squat, leaving it littered with burned debris and broken glass, one of the squatters accused the police of failing to hold back the far-right protesters. “You have unleashed fascist dogs on us,” he said.

Later, the rioters moved on to Zbawiciela Square, one of the most bohemian areas of central Warsaw, where students usually hang out in trendy pavement cafes. An arch across the middle of the square, decorated in rainbow colours with artificial flowers, had become a symbol of tolerance and diversity. On Monday evening, after the rioters had passed through and set it on fire, all that was left of the arch was a charred, steel skeleton.

Annika Hernroth-Rothstein, a Swedish Jew, is caught between Scylla and Charybdis:

On November 9, the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, a few hundred neo-Nazis marched through Stockholm in solidarity with their Greek allies in the Golden Dawn party. They marched legally, with police permits. Another few hundred leftists turned out in protest; a significant number were waving Hamas flags and sporting Palestinian kefiyahs. It made for a perfect synergy: a solemn anniversary, a day of shame, hijacked, with official permission, by two extreme and nominally opposite sides of the political spectrum, united by their hatred of Jews.


A month ago, I sought out the parliamentarian responsible for the latest anti-kosher bill and others like it. Feeling at once sad, lonely, and furious, I told him that instead of churning out all these different measures, each one aimed at outlawing yet another aspect of Jewish life, it would be much easier to write a single bill outlawing Jews. At least that would be honest. When he protested, I ended up arguing with him over the kashrut bill for almost twenty minutes, giving him the facts until, unable to refute me, he turned bright red in the face, leaned in, and said: “Well, you know us. This thing you call multiculturalism. All of that. We don’t want it. Not here. Not in our country.”

I was startled, but also relieved. Finally, some truth.

Richard Florida (The Atlantic) can’t tell truism from paradox:

Simulations of more than 20 million virtual “neighborhoods” demonstrate a troubling paradox: that community and diversity may be fundamentally incompatible goals.

James Delingpole (The Telegraph) is ready for a surprise:

Have you ever tried reading private journals or newspapers from the 1930s? What will surprise you is that right to the very last minute — up to the moment indeed when war actually broke — even the most insightful and informed commentators and writers clung on to the delusion that things would somehow turn out all right. I do hope that history is not about to repeat itself. Unfortunately, the lesson from history is that all too often it does.

Theodore Dalrymple discovers anarcho-tyranny:

The contrast between the authorities’ alacrity on one hand in preventing innocent filming for a matter of a few minutes (the policeman said authorization was necessary because it might cause a disturbance, and, being kind, I refrained from laughing), and on the other their slow response to a nasty incident that might have ended in murder, was emblematic of the modern state’s capacity to get everything exactly the wrong way around, to ascribe importance to trivia and to ignore the important.

Libya enters an “Arab autumn” (apparently one of the worst Arab seasons):

Today, the central government’s reach barely extends beyond Tripoli. Much of the rest of the country is under the control of militias. In the east, militias have just announced the creation of their own oil company, selling crude from seized oil fields and port terminals. The head of the central government, Prime Minister Ali Zeidan, is nearly powerless. He was even kidnapped by a militia group last month, only to be freed by another, a few hours later.

Victor Davis Hanson introduces us to America’s coastal royalty.

In Kansas or Utah, people do not pay $1,000 per square foot for their homes as they do on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. They do not gossip with the people who write their tax laws, as is common in the Georgetown area of Washington. Those in the empty northern third of California do not see Facebook or Oracle founders at the local Starbucks any more than they bump into the Kardashians at a hip bistro.

The problem is not just that the coasts determine how everyone else is to lead their lives, but that those living in our elite corridors have no idea about how life is lived just a short distance away in the interior — much less about the sometimes tragic consequences of their own therapeutic ideology on the distant, less influential majority.

Steve Sailer is feeling conspiratorial:

Have you ever noticed that basically everything you are supposed to believe in these days — feminism, diversity, etc. — turns out in practice to just be another way for hot babes, rich guys, super salesmen, cunning financiers, telegenic self-promoters, and charismatic politicians to get even more money and power?

Zack Beauchamp (Think Progress) gives us his sick ideology in its pure form:

There’s a third type of innovation, beyond those of science and business, that propels humanity forward: moral advancement. Enlightenment politics were, after all, a product of Enlightenment morality. The unanswerable moral challenge to monarchic privilege — “Who are you to rule us? Why are we not your equals?” — inspired the democratic, rights-respecting political systems that underpinned Deaton’s escapes.

“Democratic, rights-respecting political systems” — like the Reign of Terror, the KGB, and post-colonial Congo. “Unanswerable” — except by, say, Robert Filmer, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Carlyle, Henry Sumner Maine, Henry Louis Mencken, and a few other writers.

So morality is perhaps best thought of as a third kind of technology. Much like innovations benefiting public health and the economy, moral innovations spread unequally, beginning in the places where they be easily taught and taking root in fertile political climates. The American and French Revolutions were caused by political conflict, not by people reading Locke and Rousseau — but the fact that they had read those thinkers helped ensure that the institutions that followed would be liberal (though the effect was just a tad delayed in France).

On account of the mass shootings, mass drownings, and mass beheadings.

Once invented, moral advancements can’t be contained inside national borders — another similarity between them and Deaton’s technologies. A belief in the fundamental moral equality of persons and the attendant democratic institutions has spread globally. Democracy is the world’s dominant form of government and belief in human rights is increasingly transcending national borders.

I refer you to The Camp of the Saints.

Amos & Gromar try to make neoreaction simple. Bryce comes up with some potential approximations to neoreaction and explains how to look at the world like a neoreactionary (in two parts). Scharlach celebrates diversity:

The beauty of the reacto-sphere is that, having recognized that our current homes may not be inhabitable for much longer, we’re all spinning our hypothetical habitable worlds based on our own visions of the orders and hierarchies we believe will naturally emerge once the social engineers fall and the world is freed from the Cathedral and her Stereopticon.

As do Amos & Gromar:

What does neoreaction have to say about governance? What’s the ideal model? I think, from the neoreactionary perspective, that those are malformed questions — very wrong-headed. Neoreaction is that model which posits that there just is no universal model.

Legionnaire hears rumblings of discontent. Nick Land, in fine form as usual, explains horrorism and nemesis. James Donald shows us black privilege and recapitulates the history of the left. Frost lists seven ways the red pill will improve your life. Cane Caldo identifies a strength of the left. The Orthosphere celebrates liberty and monarchy; Spandrell, oriental despotism. John C. Wright tries to save science fiction from strong female characters.

Tiny sleepy friend

Tiny sleepy friend of SADS


Matt Sigl (Vocativ) comes out with his more or less brain-dead hit piece (featuring, as usual, the cards of a certain Carlyle Club).

Blossoming on the Internet like a fetid rose, a mysterious new political movement has generated a serious and not un-terrifying critique of modern society. Its members are loud and growing in number, and they demand nothing less than the elimination of the democratic system.


What’s the verdict? In the end, the Dark Enlightenment should be taken seriously at least by anyone interested in contemporary political thought; its beliefs are reasonably argued and its leading writers can be an engrossing read. And it is becoming increasingly evident that major structural reform, maybe radical in nature, could be what America requires if it is to continue to flourish in the 21st century.

Matt Parrott (Counter-Currents) identifies the new reaction as “New Right Lite,” meaning the New Right sans antisemitism.

In essence, this movement comprises a broad assortment of writers who are promoting our familiar New Right message, but usually stripped of explicit identitarianism and direct critiques of Jews and their central role in the machine they’re raging against.


It goes without saying that Jews will stake out places in the Neo-Reactionary sphere, like the Counter-Jihad movement, to contain any potential threat. But bear in mind that the New Right Lite™’s lack of red meat will eventually prove frustrating for their audience, as well.

Amos & Gromar disagree. Also, I suspect the Jews have better things to do.

Adam Garfinkle (The American Interest) is an enemy of progress!

Why does the American MSM almost never mention tribes, except occasionally as an afterthought, and never speak about how countries like Libya are organized socially, and how that affects their politics? There are so many examples of this that it cannot simply be a coincidence. This is not the place to go into detail, but it comes down, I think, to a form of political correctness that tacitly prohibits any mention of what might be taken even to imply that Libyans (or Yemenis or Syrians or Egyptians, or Pashtuns, or…) might in some way be pre-modern, as we understand the term. (Actually, they’re less aptly described as pre-modern than simply as different, but lowest-common-denominator Enlightenment universalism is very bad at acknowledging the dignity of difference.) That kind of appellation is considered just this side of racist in the higher etiquette of American Enlightenment liberalism, deeply dented, as it has been, by the nonsense of anti-“Orientalism” regnant now for more than a generation in academe. Yes, it was at university where our elite press reporters and their august editors learned this stuff.

Kay Hymowitz (City Journal), shocked to discover that young men have suddenly stopped “behaving rationally,” looks for answers in the dismal science:

Economists have scratched their heads. “The greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not,” MIT’s Michael Greenstone told the New York Times. If boys were as rational as their sisters, he implied, they would be staying in school, getting degrees, and going on to buff their Florsheim shoes on weekdays at 7:30 AM. Instead, the rational sex, the proto-homo economicus, is shrugging off school and resigning itself to a life of shelf stocking. Why would that be?

In response, James Taranto (The Wall Street Journal) channels Tyler Durden:

Hymowitz laments that young males are insufficiently interested in “becoming reliable husbands and fathers.” Imagine somebody opening a piece with the converse lament that young females are insufficiently interested in “becoming reliable wives and mothers.” The author would be attacked as a misogynist and a dinosaur. Why, critics would demand, should women set their sights so low?

Well, why should men? Except perhaps in very conservative communities, men with sufficient social skills can find sex and companionship without need of a matrimonial commitment (and for those who lack social skills, a willingness to marry is unlikely to provide much compensation). The culture’s unrelenting message — repeated in Hymowitz’s article — is that women are doing fine on their own. If a woman doesn’t need a man, there’s little reason for him to devote his life to her service. Further, in the age of no-fault divorce, “reliable husbands and fathers” not infrequently find themselves impoverished by child support and restricted by court order from spending time with their children.

As for education, the story of Joshua Strange ought to be enough to give any sensible young man second thoughts about enrolling in college. And work? Not all jobs, including those that require a college degree, are as rewarding as writing for an intellectual magazine (or, we hasten to add, a newspaper). Men traditionally sought to “better themselves” not because working in an office or on an assembly line was itself a source of delight, but because being a workingman enabled them to earn respect and made possible the joys of domestic life.

Today, the idea of commanding respect for an honest day’s work seems quaint, and if you don’t believe us, try “resigning” yourself to “a life of shelf stocking” and see where that gets you. In a world of female independence and limitless options, traditional family life is both less attractive and more elusive — for men and women alike — than it used to be.

Boys and young men are no less rational, or capable of adapting to incentives, than girls and young women are. They are, in fact, adapting very well to the incentives for female power and independence — which inevitably also serve as disincentives to male reliability and self-sacrifice.

Meanwhile, self-proclaimed feminist Camille Paglia explains how “ignoring the biological differences between men and women risks undermining Western civilization.”

Politically correct, inadequate education, along with the decline of America’s brawny industrial base, leaves many men with “no models of manhood,” she says. “Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There’s nothing left. There’s no room for anything manly right now.” The only place you can hear what men really feel these days, she claims, is on sports radio. No surprise, she is an avid listener. The energy and enthusiasm “inspires me as a writer,” she says, adding: “If we had to go to war,” the callers “are the men that would save the nation.”

And men aren’t the only ones suffering from the decline of men. Women, particularly elite upper-middle-class women, have become “clones” condemned to “Pilates for the next 30 years,” Ms. Paglia says. “Our culture doesn’t allow women to know how to be womanly,” adding that online pornography is increasingly the only place where men and women in our sexless culture tap into “primal energy” in a way they can’t in real life.

A key part of the remedy, she believes, is a “revalorization” of traditional male trades — the ones that allow women’s studies professors to drive to work (roads), take the elevator to their office (construction), read in the library (electricity), and go to gender-neutral restrooms (plumbing).

She also says feminism is making women miserable.

A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.

Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.

Ann Barnhardt doesn’t follow sports.

No one will do anything because all of the men keep their balls in a pickle jar sitting on top of their televisions, which they can only wistfully gaze upon whilst watching testicularly intact morons scamper about on a field, diamond or court. Meanwhile, their wives are in the other room watching “Keeping Up with the Kardashinans” and running calculations on how much longer they need to wait before filing so that they can optimize the property split and/or alimony package.

No balls, no civilization, no peace. Period.

Brian Doherty (Reason) is unwilling to tolerate intolerance of intolerance:

The advantages of classical liberal market cosmopolitanism — the idea that it’s best to set aside peaceful differences of opinion and creed and worries about different races, nationalities, and genders when deciding how we interact with the world — has a great track record of making us all richer and happier.

The idea that that people should be punished with boycott or losing their jobs over having wrong beliefs hobbles the flowering of tolerant classical liberal market cosmopolitanism.

There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

That has a different feel than: “I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don’t think you should be arrested for it.”

Glenn Reynolds (accidentally?) gets it exactly right:

Free speech was fine when it was needed to protect communists. Now it’s not anymore, so it can be abandoned. Gleichschaltung!

As ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin put it (1934):

I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers’ rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies, at home and abroad.

A British councilwoman is convicted of “bringing Brighton and Hove City Council into disrepute” and forced to take “diversity training” for denying that a character from 19th century children’s books “usually depicted as a friendly rag doll” is “racist.”

However, a panel of three fellow councillors cleared the 72-year-old of failing to treat others with respect and breaching the Equalities Act.

“It is irresponsible and immoral to promote democracy if it is likely to lead to anarchy, no matter how pure initial intentions were,” notes Zachary Keck (The Diplomat).

And if the U.S. wants to get better at promoting democracy, a good place to start would be by promoting forward-thinking authoritarian leaders who base their legitimacy on economic growth and integration into the global economy.

Radical progressive magazine CounterPunch revisits “the Good War.”

Each Pearl Harbor day offers a fresh opportunity for those who correctly believe 
that Franklin Roosevelt knew of an impending attack by the Japanese and welcomed it as
 a way of snookering the isolationists and getting America into the war. And year by year the evidence continues to mount. […]

 [Charles] Beard and others pointed out, the U.S. had already not only undertaken the blockade 
and embargoes that forced Japan into the war, but also knew that Japan was about 
to attack and waited for it to do so, so the isolationists could be outmaneuvered 
and the U.S. could enter the war on a tide of popular feeling.


Even though Japan had announced on Aug.
 10 its intentions to surrender, this didn’t deter the bloodthirsty Gen. “Hap”
 Arnold. On Aug. 14, Arnold directed a 1014-plane air raid on Tokyo, blasting the
 city to ruins and killing thousands. Not one American plane was lost and the unconditional 
surrender was signed before the planes had returned to their bases.

Progressive musician Ani DiFranco commits a heinous act of white supremacy when she plans a fan retreat at what was once a plantation. Because slavery was bad, right?

Lak all de fool Niggers o’ dat time I was right smart bit by de freedom bug for awhile. It sounded pow’ful nice to be tol’:

“You don’t have to chop cotton no more. You can th’ow dat hoe down an’ go fishin’ whensoever de notion strikes you. An’ you can roam ’roun’ at night an’ court gals jus’ as late as you please. Aint no marster gwine a-say to you, ‘Charlie, you’s got to be back when de clock strikes nine.’”

I was fool ’nough to b’lieve all dat kin’ o’ stuff. But to tell de hones’ truf, mos’ o’ us didn’ know ourse’fs no better off. Freedom meant us could leave where us’d been born an’ bred, but it meant, too, dat us had to scratch for us ownse’fs. Dem what lef’ de old plantation seamed so all fired glad to git back dat I made up my min’ to stay put. I stayed right wid my white folks as long as I could.

My white folks talked plain to me. Dey say real sad-lak, “Charlie, you’s been a dependence, but now you can go if you is so desirous. But if you wants to stay wid us you can share-crop. Dey’s a house for you an’ wood to keep you warm an’ a mule to work. We aint got much cash, but dey’s de lan’ an’ you can count on havin’ plenty o’ vit’als. Do jus’ as you please.” When I looked at my marster an’ knowed he needed me, I pleased to stay. My marster never forced me to do nary thing ’bout it. Didn’ nobody make me work after de war, but dem Yankees sho’ made my daddy work. Dey put a pick in his han’ stid o’ a gun. Dey made ’im dig a big ditch in front o’ Vicksburg. He worked a heap harder for his Uncle Sam dan he’d ever done for de marster.

John Nolte (Breitbart) selects the top ten U.S. “hate crime” hoaxes of the year. (But let us not forget the Justice Department’s official “hate crime” report itself.)

The Spectator declares 2013 “the best year in human history” because we’re all being brought down to the level of savages. And isn’t that the real meaning of equality?

Never has so much wealth been generated — but, importantly, never has growth been shared more evenly. While the rich world is wallowing [sic] a mire of debt, the developing world is making incredible progress.

Zack Beauchamp, affirming that 2013 was “the best year in human history” for five stupid reasons of his own, thinks this has something to do with letting large numbers of idiots (i.e., his communist newsletter’s target demographic) vote on stuff.

What’s going on? Obviously, it’s fairly complicated, but the most important drivers have been technological and political innovation. The Enlightenment-era advances in the scientific method got people doing high-quality research, which brought us modern medicine and the information technologies that allow us to spread medical breakthroughs around the world at increasingly faster rates. Scientific discoveries also fueled the Industrial Revolution and the birth of modern capitalism, giving us more resources to devote to large-scale application of live-saving technologies. And the global spread of liberal democracy made governments accountable to citizens, forcing them to attend to their health needs or pay the electoral price.

Handle starts compiling his great list of witch-hunt victims. Legionnaire offers a zany scheme (and possible madcap caper) for understanding the reaction. Darwinian Reactionary contemplates teleology. Legionnaire and C. M. Sturges wonder when we will hit the critical ten percent mark. Tumblr’s Reactionary Traditionalist unleashes a Christmas list of 493 Tumblr Traditionalists.

Right-wing retrospectives on the year that was:

49 thoughts on “27. The 2013 Anti-Progress Report

  1. Several days ago I was trawling through the muck and mire of progressivist media, searching for foul feminist dragons to slay as is my habit, when I noticed something odd that I have not seen in years previous: the left has noticed that that we have noticed that there seem to be some pesky, persistent differences between the races that are difficult to explain away by just calling white people racists. They have not only noticed, but they are also enraged. Consider the following headlines I noticed two days ago about 2013:

    From Salon: 2013: The year in whiteness

    From Jezebel: Phil Robertson, Anus-Obsessed Racist, Also Recommends Child Brides

    And this one from Gawker is particularly interesting: Racist John Derbyshire Writes Most Racist Article Possible

    The authoress quotes from Mr. Derbyshire’s article:

    (11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percentof whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

    And this was her refutation of his point #11:

    It’s baffling—how can such an ill-conceived work of unadultered racism exist in an ostensibly modern magazine? So racist it would make more sense at a Klan rally than in a publication funded by an eccentric cocaine-addicted socialite?

    You gentlemen perhaps have difficulty understanding feminist-speak, so allow me to translate: “Wow, just wow. How can you even – ? Do you even read what you write? Wow.”

    But in all seriousness, what was racist about the statistics Mr. Derbyshire cited? One might disagree with his conclusions, but one must still accept the facts he presents, given how very well researched and established these facts are. Perhaps one might acknowledge these facts and then find some way to explain them away, for example. But the authoress doesn’t do that; it is simply the existence and acknowledgement of the lower mean IQ of blacks that is in and of itself racist.

    Facts are, apparently, not only incredibly sexist but also racist. How terribly inconvenient. No wonder Mr. Shermer was caught in his own net; he is terminally progressive (not to mention insufferably snarky), but he is still generally concerned about scientific facts. That’s a no-no now.

    In any event, these headlines demonstrate that it has clearly been noticed that like, Horton’s Who, we are here.

    Scientists feel the need to check if men prefer to have sex with slender women. (They do.)


    Clearly you all need to be sent to Fat Acceptance Re-education Camps. Fear not, you will learn to love a four-foot-wide hiney.

    • V. good comment. You’ve obviously engaged extensively with the intellectual riches on offer in the feminist movement.

      You gentlemen perhaps have difficulty understanding feminist-speak, so allow me to translate: “Wow, just wow. How can you even – ? Do you even read what you write? Wow.”

  2. Pingback: Looking Backwards, Looking Forwards, and Dark Linkage | The Legionnaire

  3. Pingback: The State of the Reaction is Strong

  4. happy new year, Boetel!

    Radish is probably the second best reactionary website after Moldbug. Every month, another piece of Whig history that I accepted with some misgivings was shown to be false.

    The social justice warriors, who believe that only they possess the Christian virtue of caritas, grow ever more strident and angry at the Cosmos that no longer seems to have a liberal bias. They have chosen sanctimony, and thus to live in fear. Last decade they talked about snark as a great way to humiliate what passed for a Right; now their cant is relentlessly mocked on every website they don’t control.

    In Sweden, anti-fascists hack disqus so that Marxists can target people’s homes with bombs. This ends soon.

    Happy birthday, Radish Magazine!

  5. Pingback: Linkage | Uncouth Reflections

  6. Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

  7. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » 2013 Reaction points

  8. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/08 | Free Northerner

  9. Pingback: Links for January | Slate Star Codex

  10. Every once in a while I find something that redeems this whole interweb thingy. Radish is beyond all praise.
    You probably know this: Whistler’s portrait of Carlyle was the only work of art Proust hung in his room.

  11. [H.P. Lovecraft:] “The genius of a few individuals is never an index of collective racial capacity. In spite of all the Booker Washingtons & Dunbars we can see that the negro as a whole has never made any progress or founded any culture. We cannot judge a man sociologically by his own individual qualities; we have the future to think of. Two persons of different races, though equal mentally & physically, may have a vitally different sociological value, because one will certainly produce an incalculably better type of descendants than the other. We must see that the best retain social & political supremacy, in order that our best traditions may be preserved. Therefore, to me, racial prejudice is not irrational or unexplainable; nor in any way unjustifiable. It has awkward phases, but its benefits immeasurably outweigh its disadvantages.”

    This logically leads to a sort of Scientifically based National Socialism guided by the ideal of removing the genes that cause disease, defects and weaknesses and general improvement of the subject human type. The last leader who advocated this was destroyed and his works vilified, his government accused of Genocide (without evidence) and the whole world united against it.

  12. You know, one gets hints here and there that you have a very high IQ, Mr Radish. But here’s another objection to that annoying Cathedral Meme. The ancestors of those behind the Cathedral — e.g., Marx, Trotsky, Boas, Freud, Alinsky, Friedan, Gould — did not spend much time in cathedrals as opposed to, say, synagogues.

    Imported black Muslims decapitate a British soldier on a London street in broad daylight.

    It’s even better than that line implies: they were imported as blacks, but became Muslims on British soil. A Chicago-rackets-court moment: we’ve achieved autochthonicity in terms of issues around vibrancy. It’s a bit like plasmids: blacks pick up jihad from Muslims, Muslims pick up gangsta-culture from blacks, YT is even more enriched.

    • I doubt they spent much time in synagogues. Their religion was for the most part Marxism, not Judaism. Besides, Judaism isn’t a particularly Progressive ideology. “The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.” And then what, they introduced green energy subsidies?

      I kid, of course. You weren’t really talking about synagogues or Judaism; you were just trying to call them ethnically Jewish. Go ahead and call them ethnically Jewish. No one’s going to scream at you here. We would rather you say it and then also make a case for its relevance, of course.

      That said, I think it’s a stretch to say that Jews were “the ancestors of those behind the Cathedral” (which is what you were actually saying) and just leave it at that. If you only look at the 20th century, focusing on Progressivism since the 1930s, I guess you can make that case. (Though I notice you’ve listed Marx but not Engels, Trotsky but not Lenin, Boas but not his disciple Mead—I mean, they’re not all Jews, right? These people “behind the Cathedral”?)

      But in the long, sordid history of democracy and the intellectuals, Locke and Rousseau come before Gould and Alinsky. We could stick to the 20th century, though, if you like: Croly and Dewey, for example. And tell me how many of these men went to synagogue (Rothbard, ‘Power and the Intellectuals’):

      The New Republic magazine, founded in 1914 as the leading intellectual organ of progressivism, was a living embodiment of the burgeoning alliance between big-business interests, in particular the House of Morgan, and the growing legion of collectivist intellectuals. Founder and publisher of the New Republic was Willard W. Straight, partner of J.P. Morgan & Co., and its financier was Straight’s wife, the heiress Dorothy Whitney. Major editor of the influential new weekly was the veteran collectivist and theoretician of Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism, Herbert David Croly. Croly’s two coeditors were Walter Edward Weyl, another theoretician of the New Nationalism, and the young, ambitious former official of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, the future pundit Walter Lippmann. As Woodrow Wilson began to take America into World War I, the New Republic, though originally Rooseveltian, became an enthusiastic supporter of the war, and a virtual spokesman for the Wilson war effort, the wartime collectivist economy, and the new society molded by the war.

    • Thanks for reply (sorry can’t reply directly, but this software doesn’t allow me to).

      Unlike Moldbug (and Rothbard), you’re a good writer but like him you help The Cathedral by not being objective about The Cathedral. You’ve also used a liberal line-of-argument above:

      Me: Blacks commit murders, rapes and robberies at hugely disproportionate rates in western nations. Without blacks, the problem of violent and acquisitive crime would be considerably reduced. Without Hispanics/Muslims, it would be reduced still further.

      Liberal: But whites commit murder, rape and robbery too! And anyway, all serial killers and paedophiles are white. Also: The Slave Trade. The Holocaust. Climate Change. As Susan “The Quaker” Sontag put it: “The white race is the cancer of human history.”

      I won’t ask whether you think Sontag’s ancestors spent much time in cathedrals.

      I doubt they spent much time in synagogues.

      True. I was talking about their ancestors.

      Their religion was for the most part Marxism, not Judaism.

      Marxism is a mutation of Judaism.

      Besides, Judaism isn’t a particularly Progressive ideology.

      Nor is Islam. But in the UK you’ll find Muslims working v. happily with The Cathedral. But not many traditional Christians do the same. You know, the Christians most similar to the Christians who built cathedrals. Funny that, isn’t?

      “The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.” And then what, they introduced green energy subsidies?

      Plunder, pillage and slaughter are perfectly compatible with progressive ideology: see the French and Russian Revolutions. More recently, to Bush, Hitchens and the rest of the neo-cons, it was “racist” to say democracy couldn’t be installed in Iraq.

      I kid, of course. You weren’t really talking about synagogues or Judaism; you were just trying to call them ethnically Jewish. Go ahead and call them ethnically Jewish. No one’s going to scream at you here.

      That wasn’t my concern. You see, I live in the UK, land of Milton, Mill and Orwell. We’re one of the places that invented free speech. But nowadays people go to prison for expressing the wrong opinions on certain sensitive topics. That’s why I prefer to be oblique. And I assure you: our thought-crime laws were not created by fans of Locke or Rousseau or, for the most part, by people who were ethnically English.

      In the US, you’ve still got the First Amendment, thanks to fans of Locke. The Soviet Union, otoh, was founded by fans of Marx. That made a big difference.

      We would rather you say it and then also make a case for its relevance, of course.

      I think that list of names was a good case for its relevance.

      That said, I think it’s a stretch to say that Jews were “the ancestors of those behind the Cathedral” (which is what you were actually saying) and just leave it at that. If you only look at the 20th century, focusing on Progressivism since the 1930s, I guess you can make that case.

      Yes, you can make the case in recent history, rather than in the Stone Age. Which surely makes the case a strong one. For example, Stanley Fischer continues an ethnic trend that didn’t exist in the 19th century. That suggests a considerable shift in power from one group to another in recent history, as opposed to the Stone Age.

      (Though I notice you’ve listed Marx but not Engels, Trotsky but not Lenin, Boas but not his disciple Mead—I mean, they’re not all Jews, right? These people “behind the Cathedral”?)

      Right. Yes, of course the Cathedralists are not all Jews, any more than all murderers, rapists and robbers are non-white. Stalin wasn’t Jewish either. But he was an ethnic outsider, like Lenin (who was part-Jewish). Marxism appeals to minorities who want power and one minority is hugely over-represented among those who have applied Marxism, propagandized for Marxism and adapted Marxism to new ends.

      But in the long, sordid history of democracy and the intellectuals, Locke and Rousseau come before Gould and Alinsky.

      And St Paul comes before Locke and Rousseau. But where are the mass-murdering totalitarian states who committed their mass murder and enforced their totalitarianism in the name of Locke or Rousseau rather than of Marx (and his disciple Engels)? In any case, Locke was far less malign than Rousseau.

      We could stick to the 20th century, though, if you like:

      Well, to understand 2014 I suggest looking first and hardest at patterns in the 20C, rather than at patterns in the 19C or 18C (which are still relevant, of course).

      Croly and Dewey, for example. And tell me how many of these men went to synagogue (Rothbard, ‘Power and the Intellectuals’):

      Absolutely none, I assume. Like Moldbug and your good self, the libertarian (you like libertarian?) Rothbard had a strong personal motive for muddying the water. I prefer Paul Gottfried:

      But once the Left took over our universities, the free speech industry on campuses was closed down. Today PC speech codes and ideologically uniform faculties prevail, particularly in the social sciences and liberal arts, thanks to the victory of these bogus freedom-fighters.

      It is obvious to anyone with a knowledge of recent history that those responsible for these changes were predominantly Jewish. The New Left in the US was the basically the work of Jews (as Stanley Rothman easily shows in Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the Left). One would have to work overtime and very creatively to hide this palpable connection.

      But that work is being done. One attempt to divert attention came from the late Allan Bloom, the best-selling cultural critic. In The Closing of the American Mind (1987), Bloom ascribed student radicalism in the 1960s to the “German connection”. It was not Jewish kids from the suburbs but hippies high on Nietzsche and Heidegger who were wreaking havoc on American campuses.

      I lived through this period. And I do not recall meeting any of the Teutonized radicals so irately described by Bloom. The leftists of my acquaintance were all Jews from New York, in whose minds traditional America and anti-Semitism were inextricably linked.

      A Jewish Conservative Wonders: Is Free Speech Really A Jewish Tradition?

      “One would have to work overtime and very creatively to hide this palpable connection.” E.g., by using “The Cathedral” as a short-hand for the Progressives, when Progressives hate cathedrals and everything cathedrals stand for: tradition, beauty, transcendence, hierarchy.

    • You believe I’m “not being objective about The Cathedral” and have “a strong personal motive for muddying the water.” (Presumably, I suppose, this “strong personal motive” is a fantastical ‘group selection/group action strategy’ passed down from whatever Jews may lurk in my family tree.) The truth is simpler: I think the antisemitic* theory of history, though loosely tied to reality, is basically wrong. That, it seems to me, is also basically the judgment of, e.g., Nick Land, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, and many others who cannot possibly be confused with crypto-Jews.

      (*A descriptive term, not a normative one.)

      You think I’m using “a liberal line-of-argument.” I’m not. If a race denialist says to you (or I) that “whites commit murder, rape and robbery too,” that is simply true and irrelevant—because you (and I) know perfectly well that whites do those things! Your claim, after all (and mine), was that “blacks commit murders, rapes and robberies at hugely disproportionate rates in western nations.” So far, so good.

      But your cryptic claim about Jews, on the other hand, was: “The ancestors of those behind the Cathedral — e.g., Marx, Trotsky, Boas, Freud, Alinsky, Friedan, Gould — did not spend much time in cathedrals as opposed to, say, synagogues.” That’s the complete sentence (with my emphasis)—which I could only interpret to mean something like: Jews are behind it all. I didn’t see any subtleties on the centuries-long evolution of Progressivism, so I just pointed out some of your obvious omissions, like Engels and Lenin, and that Locke and Rousseau are way more important than Friedan and Gould—and your response has essentially been to accuse me of Jew tricks.

      Hey man, if you want to talk about the history of Progressivism, I’m all about that. We can go back to the “Stone Age” and talk about John Calvin and John Locke—or we can talk about the 20th century. In the 20th century, we are sure to encounter Jews. So you want to talk about Jews? Cool. I have a big folder full of stuff on Jews. But you led with that cryptic claim and, having encountered what I would call mild skepticism, appear to be making this (a) personal and (b) racial-essentialist.

      So at this point I’m wondering if your laudable attempt “to understand 2014” by “looking first and hardest at patterns in the 20C” has brought you to what I would call unreasonable conclusions; e.g., all Jews are bad because something something scorpion and the frog. If so, I’m thinking we really do need to go back further than the 20th century and muddy up the waters a little just to get the proper perspective. Because when you tell me I have “a strong personal motive for muddying the water”—well, I know that something has gone wrong with your theory of history, and while obviously I cannot convince you of that, I’m confident the audience will get the same answer as me.

      To use your metaphor, this is like accusing someone of being black and therefore a criminal. I spend a lot of time explaining to race denialists that that’s not what I believe. That’s what makes that “liberal line-of-argument” you cited silly and wrong when used against me. Because it’s an argument against racial essentialism, and that’s not what I believe.

      I mean, I think that you just accused Rothbard of “muddying the water,” which to me means lying, and doing so because he was Jewish—but remember, I only quoted a short list of influential, early 20th century Progressives! They’re just names! Are you claiming Willard W. Straight did not found The New Republic? What room for Jew lies in that list? This is why I suspect a possible sandwich-Jew mindset.

      By the way, “the mass-murdering totalitarian states who committed their mass murder and enforced their totalitarianism in the name of Locke or Rousseau” include Revolutionary France; and while Locke was indeed “far less malign than Rousseau,” my whole point is that the one idea evolved into the next, and singling out Jews as “the ancestors of those behind the Cathedral” is, as I said, “a stretch,” in my opinion.

      In any case, thank you for your comments, and do stick around.

    • Quick reply to one bit (I’ll try and respond to the rest later). Look, I admire Larry Auster as much as I despise Richard Dawkins. I.e., a lot. Given that, would you expect me to make the statement you have attributed to me?

      The ancestors of those behind the Cathedral — e.g., Marx, Trotsky, Boas, Freud, Alinsky, Friedan, Gould — did not spend much time in cathedrals as opposed to, say, synagogues.”

      That’s the complete sentence (with my emphasis)—which I could only interpret to mean something like: Jews are behind it all.

      I’d suggest you’re misreading. What about the “e.g.” and “much”? My statement is clearly about the relative contributions of the people whose ancestors went to cathedrals and the people whose ancestors went to synagogues. And it’s equally clear that the post-synagogal group is hugely over-represented in the Cathedral both in numbers and in influence. I would say that group was necessary-but-not-sufficient, e.g., for the triumph of communism. Which is why I don’t like the term “the Cathedral”. I like cathedrals. I do not like Marxism.

      If I’d said this, you’d be right:

      “The ancestors of those behind the Cathedral — i.e., Marx, Trotsky, Boas, Freud, Alinsky, Friedan, Gould and their co-ethnics — spent no time worshipping in cathedrals rather than in synagogues.”

      That is absolutist, one-group-is-entirely-to-blame. I do not believe that. Nor does Paul Gottfried. Gottfried thinks Allan Bloom attempted to “hide” a “palpable connection” between the New Left and Jews. IOW, Bloom attempted to muddy the water. Is Gottfried accusing Bloom of lying? Is Gottfried one of those who “taste Jews in their sandwiches”? I’d say no, he isn’t. And if he isn’t, I’m not.

    • I’ll shift this to the front:

      Hey man, if you want to talk about the history of Progressivism, I’m all about that. We can go back to the “Stone Age” and talk about John Calvin and John Locke—or we can talk about the 20th century. In the 20th century, we are sure to encounter Jews. So you want to talk about Jews? Cool. I have a big folder full of stuff on Jews. But you led with that cryptic claim and, having encountered what I would call mild skepticism, appear to be making this (a) personal and (b) racial-essentialist.

      I suggested in my first comment that you have a very high IQ. I then said that you were a good writer. I’ll further suggest that your IQ and literary skill are influenced by your ancestry. Now I am being (a) personal and (b) racial-essentialist. I assume you have no objections. Human beings don’t generally object to being told positive truths about themselves. But negative truths don’t go down so well. Or claims of negative truth: I can’t read your mind, so I don’t know exactly why you are, IMO, being subjective and muddying the water. Derbyshire does it out of fear and his respect for power, I’d say. He doesn’t respect blacks because they’re both stupid and hapless. Jews, otoh, are intelligent, efficient and powerful.

      This is about epistemology and, as you put it, theory of history. So if you want to discuss it further, it would be useful to establish how you think one establishes a claim about group X and its influence. What significance do Stanley Fischer and Janet Yellen have, for example?

      You believe I’m “not being objective about The Cathedral” and have “a strong personal motive for muddying the water.” (Presumably, I suppose, this “strong personal motive” is a fantastical ‘group selection/group action strategy’ passed down from whatever Jews may lurk in my family tree.)

      No, I don’t think DNA codes for specific motives. But it can code for emotionality and ethnocentrism / collectivism. Therefore, an emotional ethnocentric person will not necessarily come to questions about his particular ethnic group with cool objectivity. There are obvious evolutionary benefits to that, in some environments.

      The truth is simpler: I think the antisemitic* theory of history, though loosely tied to reality, is basically wrong. That, it seems to me, is also basically the judgment of, e.g., Nick Land, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, and many others who cannot possibly be confused with crypto-Jews.

      Nick Land: bad writer, bad thinker. Derbyshire: good writer, bad thinker on certain topics. Steve Sailer doesn’t belong with either of them, as one of your own linkees points out:

      Plenty of people around these parts can’t think clearly when it comes to the Joos. It’s probably Sailer’s only major blind-spot. — Hate Bait (another bad writer, IMO)

      How odd that Sailer doesn’t think clearly on that one important topic. Note that he claims some Jewish ancestry. Note also Derbyshire’s reference here:

      It was left to the unembarrassable Steve Sailer to point out the other diversity aspect here. Quote from him, quote: “If either Summers or Yellen gets the post, then the 98 percent gentile majority of America won’t have held the Fed Chairman’s post from 1987 through 2018,” end quote. As Steve says, though, this is so unmentionable we should forget he mentioned it, so I will. — Radio Derb — Transcript, Saturday, October 12th, 2013

      Derbyshire is using a cop-out: “It wasn’t me who said that, see? I’m just quoting someone else.”

      You think I’m using “a liberal line-of-argument.” I’m not. If a race denialist says to you (or I) that “whites commit murder, rape and robbery too,” that is simply true and irrelevant—because you (and I) know perfectly well that whites do those things! Your claim, after all (and mine), was that “blacks commit murders, rapes and robberies at hugely disproportionate rates in western nations.” So far, so good.

      What I meant was: when a sacred group is criticized, liberals use (inter alia) the “But everyone does it” line. You’re not a liberal and you understand the bell curve and its implications, so I don’t think it works for you to introduce Locke and Rousseau, as tho’ either of them has been as influential or as malignant as Marx or as tho’ Marxism was a necessary consequence of their ideas.

      But your cryptic claim about Jews, on the other hand, was: “The ancestors of those behind the Cathedral — e.g., Marx, Trotsky, Boas, Freud, Alinsky, Friedan, Gould — did not spend much time in cathedrals as opposed to, say, synagogues.” That’s the complete sentence (with my emphasis)—which I could only interpret to mean something like: Jews are behind it all. I didn’t see any subtleties on the centuries-long evolution of Progressivism, so I just pointed out some of your obvious omissions, like Engels and Lenin, and that Locke and Rousseau are way more important than Friedan and Gould—

      But are they? Locke and Rousseau were individuals: Friedan and Gould were more like representatives of a collective. I know from personal experience how important Gould has been, because I was taken in by The Mismeasure of Man at one time. I fell for his lies, but he wouldn’t have been able to lie to so many without a big network promoting him and publicizing his ideas in a way much better theorists didn’t have available to them. People don’t refer to Locke or Rousseau to defend the “We’re all the same under the skin” dogma. They refer to Gould and they’ve done it for decades. As for Friedan: here’s what you say about her above:

      Feminists celebrate fifty years of Betty Friedan destroying families and generally ruining women in every possible way.

      Okay, you’re being hyperbolic for comic effect: you don’t really believe she ruined women in every possible way. But she was indeed a major vector of feminism (“vector” in the microbiological sense). When you look at other major vectors, they are disproportionately drawn from the same ethnic group as Friedan (and Gould). And if you look at their malignancy, i.e., influence, that is even more disproportionate than their numbers. Game theory is at work: a collectivist minority is attacking an individualist majority, recruiting other minorities to its cause.

      and your response has essentially been to accuse me of Jew tricks.

      No, human tricks. It’s human not to be objective about a group we’re attached to. But this is a psychological variable: groups differ in ethnocentrism and their ability to be objective. And also in their potential for good and ill.

      So at this point I’m wondering if your laudable attempt “to understand 2014 by “looking first and hardest at patterns in the 20C” has brought you to what I would call unreasonable conclusions; e.g., all Jews are bad

      That would be a ridiculous thing to believe. But it’s not ridiculous to say that, en masse, a group may have a powerful influence for good or ill on a society. This is a quote Larry Auster used for his essay “Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists”:

      “Any large number of free-thinking Jews” is “undesirable” if one wants to maintain or develop a society in which a Christian tradition can flourish, said T.S. Eliot in 1934. He was right. — David A. Hollinger, Science, Jews and Secular Culture, 1996 — Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists

      I think that’s clearly true. But it’s not just free-thinkers who have an anti-Christian animus.

      because something something scorpion and the frog. If so, I’m thinking we really do need to go back further than the 20th century and muddy up the waters a little just to get the proper perspective. Because when you tell me I have “a strong personal motive for muddying the water”—well, I know that something has gone wrong with your theory of history, and while obviously I cannot convince you of that, I’m confident the audience will get the same answer as me.

      To use your metaphor, this is like accusing someone of being black and therefore a criminal.

      But I’m not announcing to you a priori that you will be subjective because of your ancestry. I am saying that you are being subjective and relating that to your ancestry. I’m also relating your intelligence to your ancestry. HBD 101: Psychology is strongly influenced by genetics.

      I spend a lot of time explaining to race denialists that that’s not what I believe. That’s what makes that “liberal line-of-argument” you cited silly and wrong when used against me. Because it’s an argument against racial essentialism, and that’s not what I believe.

      If by racial essentialism you mean that race determines behaviour and that races have unique characteristics not found in other races, I don’t believe in it. But I do believe that races have very different effects, on average, on a society. I admire Larry Auster, but he was not typical of his race. If he’d had children, I think they would have reverted to the mean and been more like his brother Paul.

      I mean, I think that you just accused Rothbard of “muddying the water,” which to me means lying, and doing so because he was Jewish—but remember, I only quoted a short list of influential, early 20th century Progressives! They’re just names! Are you claiming Willard W. Straight did not found The New Republic? What room for Jew lies in that list? This is why I suspect a possible sandwich-Jew mindset.

      I don’t know enough about Rothbard, so I’ll substitute Allan Bloom and his attempt, in Gottfried’s words, “to hide a palpable connection” between the New Left and Jews. Did Bloom make that attempt because he was Jewish? I would say, yes, he did: he clearly had a strong personal motive for being less than objective. But Gottfried clearly has the same motive. I’m sure Gottfried would prefer the connection not to be there. Nevertheless, it is and he doesn’t pretend otherwise. IOW, the motive-for-muddying is not irresistible. Gottfried resists it. Auster resisted it.

      By the way, “the mass-murdering totalitarian states who committed their mass murder and enforced their totalitarianism in the name of Locke or Rousseau” include Revolutionary France;

      Revolutionary France didn’t act in the name of Rousseau as communist states explicitly acted in the name of Marx. Rousseau didn’t found a cult: there is no Rousseauvism.

      and while Locke was indeed “far less malign than Rousseau,” my whole point is that the one idea evolved into the next,

      OK, it’s evolutionary. But that doesn’t mean the malignancy of Marxism was present in the ideas of Locke or even of Rousseau. Cobras are venomous. That doesn’t mean the common ancestor of snakes was venomous or that the evolution of venom was inevitable. But in some environments, it was obviously advantageous.

      and singling out Jews as “the ancestors of those behind the Cathedral” is, as I said, “a stretch,” in my opinion.

      I’m not singling them out: I am saying that they are necessary-but-not-sufficient and that use of a term like “The Cathedral” conceals their role. Moldbug also uses terms from Hinduism like “brahmin” and “dalit”. So Gould was a brahmin in the Cathedral. I think “rabbi” and “Synagogue” work much better. If Gould had been born a hundred years earlier, they might well have been literally true.

    • Amicus Ecclesiarum – Your posts are a goldmine of well-researched information and careful thought. May I recommend you begin a blog to better document your thoughts for others to review? The Reactosphere can ALWAYS do with more blogs.

  13. Hey, so since you’ve reached December, does that mean that your magnum opus review of 2013 is finished for now? In other words, I’ve been hitting the page periodically to try to figure out if anything is new, can I stop now? ;-)

    Great job BTW, I can tell you put a *ton* of work into it and it was very enjoyable to read!

  14. A late thanks for the link. In light of the recent developments this month, I can’t wait to see what Radish comes out with next. Best of luck this year.

    Every well-poisoning bit of claptrap has spawned comment after comment taunting the article and author. Every overenthusiastic nanny and bureaucrat pushes more people into pre-Reactionary mode. We live in interesting times.

  15. Pingback: To Mayberry, Minerva, or the Matrix? | The Ümlaut

  16. Pingback: A Long-ago Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

  17. Pingback: My Obligatory Best of 2014 | The Reactivity Place

  18. Pingback: My Obligatory Best of 2014

  19. Pingback: Neoreactionary Accomplishments Part One | morerightnotes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s